soc-pe-bot
commented
1 year ago Team's Response
As the testers reason for wanting the definition of timestamp to be specified at the start of the UG is not explicitly specified, we will try our best to infer the reason and answer to the best of our abilities.
We feel that placing the definition of timestamp at the start of the UG would not provide much advantage to the user and it is likely that the user would just read it and forget it should we choose to do so or just treat it as white noise which would be unnecessary bloat for the UG.
When reading the argument format for timestamp, a perceptive target user (using the knowledge that the application is meant to track a student's lecture watch progress) might be able to infer that the timestamp refers to a timestamp of a video. However, should they not be able to infer so, this information is not important to them at this point anyways. By the word "timestamp", the user should know that it represents a specific moment in time, and thus the command format should not come of as confusing or unexpected if that is the testers concern.
Only when the user encounters an argument that utilises timestamp (e.g. when adding a video or editing a video) does it matter to the user what the timestamp represents. Hence, they are explained there. This also has the added benefit of allowing us, the developers, the freedom to use timestamps for different purposes in the future should the need arises.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
In the argument format section of UG, only the format for timestamp was given.
It does not explain what the timestamp means i.e where the user last stopped watching.
It is explained later on but in a smaller bullet point when describing features:
This explanation should be at the front of the UG.