CT-UT Sample Questions Answers

At an early development stage where only a rudimentary prototype exists, a usability review (e.g., expert or heuristic review) is the most effective method. It allows usability specialists to identify potential usability issues without the need for a fully functioning product. Reviews can provide immediate, actionable feedback to guide design improvements before moving into more resource-intensive usability testing. An unmoderated usability test (B) or lab test (D) may be impractical at this stage due to limited interactivity. A usability maturity assessment (C) evaluates organizational processes and is not applicable to evaluating a specific prototype.

In usability evaluations, a distinction is made between actual usability problems (where a user struggles to complete a task or is confused by the interface) and suggestions or ideas that users provide based on their preferences or perceived improvements. When a participant offers a new feature idea (such as a quick search box), this is classified as a “good idea” or “feature suggestion,” not necessarily a usability problem. It may inform future design enhancements but does not indicate a failure in usability for existing functionality.

A usability test session is a controlled period during which a test participant performs tasks using the system under test while being observed by a moderator and sometimes additional stakeholders or observers. The goal is to understand how users interact with the interface and identify usability problems. Option A describes an individual task, not the whole session. Option C refers to a test plan or test script, and Option D describes a test technique rather than a usability session. Thus, option B provides the most accurate and comprehensive definition.

The described issue violates the usability heuristic “User control and freedom,” as defined by Jakob Nielsen. This principle emphasizes that users should have the ability to undo and redo actions and navigate freely without being trapped in irreversible sequences. In the scenario, users are forced into the checkout process without a clear way to return or correct mistakes, except through the unreliable and disruptive back button. This design flaw undermines user autonomy and can result in lost progress or frustration.

The use of HTML tables for layout instead of proper semantic HTML and responsive design violates accessibility guidelines, particularly those defined in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Such a design makes it difficult or impossible for users relying on screen readers, keyboard navigation, or other assistive technologies to interact effectively with the site. Therefore, this creates a significant accessibility risk, which is distinct from general usability or user experience risks. Accessibility ensures inclusion of users with physical or cognitive impairments, making option B the correct choice.

Human-centered design, as defined by ISO 9241-210, emphasizes early user involvement, iterative design, and continuous usability evaluation. Option D aligns with this model as it begins with understanding user needs (interview users), proceeds through iterative prototyping (which allows for continuous improvement), and involves user evaluation. This ensures that the final product is shaped by real user input and feedback. Options A and B lack iteration and continuous evaluation, while option C, although partially aligned, lacks explicit user involvement in the evaluation process, focusing only on expert reviews.

Moderating the usability test is a core activity during the actual usability test session. The moderator guides participants through tasks, ensures the session stays on track, and avoids introducing bias. Option A (testing the setup) happens before the session, during preparation. Option C (extracting findings) occurs during analysis, after the test. Option D (talking during task execution) should be minimized unless necessary, to avoid influencing user behavior. Therefore, option B is the only correct answer aligned with best practices in usability testing.

The System Usability Scale (SUS) is a standardized, reliable tool used to measure perceived usability. It consists of 10 items with five response options (from strongly agree to strongly disagree). It is widely used due to its simplicity and effectiveness in providing a single score to reflect a user’s overall satisfaction with a system. Option A refers to ISO's definition of usability testing, B describes a task in usability testing, and D refers to a usability requirement, not SUS. Therefore, the correct description of SUS is option C.

Option B represents a realistic, goal-oriented scenario that reflects how an actual user would interact with the website. It incorporates context, user intent, constraints, and desired outcome—all characteristics of well-designed usability tasks. Option A is vague and lacks real-world motivation. Option C is too prescriptive and limits insight into user behavior, while D is a survey question, not a usability task. According to Nielsen Norman Group and ISO 25062, the best usability tasks are scenario-based, realistic, and outcome-driven—making B the correct answer.