Practice L - Stan Description - 14.2.1 | Writing Effective User Stories | Business Analysis
K12 Students

Academics

AI-Powered learning for Grades 8–12, aligned with major Indian and international curricula.

Professionals

Professional Courses

Industry-relevant training in Business, Technology, and Design to help professionals and graduates upskill for real-world careers.

Games

Interactive Games

Fun, engaging games to boost memory, math fluency, typing speed, and English skills—perfect for learners of all ages.

Practice Questions

Test your understanding with targeted questions related to the topic.

Question 1

Easy

Write a user story for someone wanting to find an article.

💡 Hint: Use the format: As a [user type], I want [goal], so that [reason].

Question 2

Easy

What does INVEST stand for?

💡 Hint: Think of the criteria that ensure a user story's quality.

Practice 4 more questions and get performance evaluation

Interactive Quizzes

Engage in quick quizzes to reinforce what you've learned and check your comprehension.

Question 1

What does INVEST stand for in user stories?

  • Independent
  • Novel
  • Valuable
  • Estimable
  • Simple
  • Testable
  • Independent
  • Negotiable
  • Valuable
  • Estimable
  • Small
  • Testable
  • Independence
  • Necessity
  • Value
  • Effort
  • Size
  • Testing

💡 Hint: Remember that the second option follows the accepted format.

Question 2

True or False: Acceptance criteria clarify when a user story is considered done.

  • True
  • False

💡 Hint: What role do acceptance criteria play in Agile?

Solve 1 more question and get performance evaluation

Challenge Problems

Push your limits with challenges.

Question 1

Analyze a real-life product and propose three user stories that align with user needs.

💡 Hint: Identify the user type and their primary goals.

Question 2

Develop a set of acceptance criteria for a user story concerning an e-commerce checkout process.

💡 Hint: Focus on the steps necessary for a successful transaction.

Challenge and get performance evaluation