A media company surveys the end users of their AEM Sites website. The survey identifies that it is difficult to locate content on the site due to lack of relevancy and slow performance when…

Question

Options

• ADevelop the integration as proof of concept with sample content
• BTest usability of the feature with selected business users
• CDevelop the integration and deploy it to 50% of the production AEM instances
• DDevelop the integration as proof of concept with full production content
• ETest usability of the feature withselected end users

• A
  9% (3)
• B
  71% (24)
• C
  18% (6)
• E
  3% (1)

Explanation

Evaluating a new, unproven taxonomy integration in AEM requires both realistic data and the right evaluators. Option D is correct because the core problem is relevancy and performance with large volumes of content - testing a PoC with only sample content (A) would fail to surface whether the taxonomy actually improves relevancy or maintains performance at production scale. Option B is correct because the business team proposed this solution, so business users are best positioned to validate whether the taxonomy meets business requirements before wider testing begins.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A (PoC with sample content): Insufficient - the very problem being solved is at scale, so sample data won't expose the real issues.
• C (deploy to 50% of production): Far too risky for a new technology the team has zero experience with; this bypasses proper evaluation entirely.
• E (end users): End-user testing is appropriate later (UAT), not during the initial evaluation phase - business users validate requirements first.

Memory tip: Think "Full Data, Business First" - for evaluating a new AEM integration, you need production-volume content to validate it truly solves the problem, and business users (not end users) to confirm it meets the defined requirements before broader rollout.

No community discussion yet for this question.