CT-UT Questions and Answers

Usability test reports are more effective when they are balanced and include not only problems but also what worked well. Including positive findings increases credibility, encourages the development team, and helps them understand what should remain unchanged. Option B violates privacy and ethical standards. Option C may dilute focus, and D could worsen the problem by making the report less accessible. Thus, the best practice supported by usability.gov and Nielsen Norman Group is to include both positive and negative findings.

A best practice in usability reporting (based on ISO/IEC 25062:2006 – Common Industry Format for usability test reports) is to include a clear description of the evaluation method used. This includes how the test was designed, how participants were selected, what tasks were performed, and under what conditions the test was conducted. This ensures the results are credible and reproducible. The provided structure omits this essential information. While the report length is not excessive and positive findings may or may not be present, the key missing component is the method description.

When a customer emphasizes the importance of accessibility, it means they are concerned with ensuring that users with disabilities or limitations are not excluded from using their products or services. Accessibility is about inclusiveness—providing equal access and opportunity to all users regardless of physical or cognitive ability. Option C directly reflects this understanding. The other options (A, B, and D) are aspects of usability or development methodologies but do not relate to addressing the needs of users with disabilities, which is the core focus of accessibility.

A usability test script is a structured document used by the moderator to ensure consistency across test sessions. It typically includes pre-session briefing text, pre- and post-session interview questions, and the specific usability tasks to be performed. However, it does not include answers to the test questions, as usability tests focus on observing user behavior and performance—not testing users’ knowledge. Providing answers would bias results and invalidate findings. Thus, option D is incorrect and the best choice.

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.

Usability labs provide a controlled environment that offers several advantages for observing and recording usability test sessions. Specifically, they allow for easy observation of participants (ii), standardized conditions for each session (iv), and facilitate audio and video recording for detailed analysis (v). However, the context is not natural (i), because the lab is an artificial setting rather than the user’s actual environment. Also, setting up a professional usability lab is not inexpensive (iii); it typically involves significant costs for equipment, space, and staffing. Therefore, options ii, iv, and v are true, while i and iii are false.

Accessibility refers to designing products so that people with disabilities or limitations (permanent or temporary) can use them effectively. According to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and ISO standards, accessibility focuses on ensuring that users with vision, hearing, cognitive, or mobility impairments can access digital interfaces. Option D captures this intent accurately. The other options relate to general usability or responsiveness (e.g., device adaptability or user experience in noisy environments) but do not address the inclusive nature of accessibility as defined by official guidelines.