CPUX-F emphasizes that user requirements must be rooted in an understanding of users and their context of use. Before designing or specifying technical solutions, the analyst must identify the relevant user groups and the situations in which they need to perform the task. This ensures the solution meets actual user needs.

Vague terms like ‘intuitive’ are not testable user requirements. CPUX-F guides practitioners to break down such statements into concrete, observable user needs and context-specific criteria. The correct response seeks clarification tied to user groups and measurable outcomes, forming a basis for validation.

A Context of Use Analysis involves identifying all relevant user groups, their tasks, and the environments in which they work. Assuming homogeneity within a professional role is a risk. Nurses may have different specializations, levels of tech-savviness, and tasks (e.g., triage vs. administration), all of which significantly impact user needs.

CPUX-F recognizes that not all user requirements can be implemented immediately. Effective prioritization is a multi-criteria decision that weighs the value to the user (importance, frequency), the value to the business (goals, ROI), and practical constraints (technical feasibility, cost).

Good acceptance criteria are specific, measurable, and user-focused. Option C clearly defines the user group (‘a user who booked…’), the task (‘within three clicks…’), and the expected outcome (‘initiate a new booking for the same route’). It describes observable user behavior, making it valid for usability testing.

User Group Profiles are a foundational tool in CPUX-F. They synthesize research data to create archetypes that represent distinct groups of users with common characteristics, goals, and contexts of use. This ensures the design team has a shared, empathetic understanding of who they are designing for, guiding relevant design decisions.

CPUX-F treats usability evaluation as integral to the human-centred design process. Findings that reveal user needs not being met (like the need for efficient access) should feed back into the cycle. The user requirement should be refined to include the need for ‘findable’ or ‘accessible’ export, driving an iterative design improvement.

This is a core CPUX-F distinction. User needs (e.g., ‘I need to be confident my payment was processed’) are discovered through research. User requirements (e.g., ‘After payment, the system shall display a clear success message and a transaction reference number’) are the actionable, design-oriented specifications derived to satisfy those needs.

CPUX-F’s iterative philosophy aligns well with agile. The most effective approach is to engage in continuous, lightweight user feedback loops. Research informs backlog refinement, and testing prototypes or increments validates assumptions and uncovers new needs, allowing user requirements to evolve intelligently with each cycle.

CPUX-F emphasizes that user requirements must be rooted in an understanding of users and their context of use. Before designing or specifying technical solutions, the analyst must identify the relevant user groups and the situations in which they need to perform the task. This ensures the solution meets actual user needs.0