Bisceto / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Lack of visuals in UG and particularly wordy #18

Open Bisceto opened 1 year ago

Bisceto commented 1 year ago

There is a lack of visual aids, particularly in the second half of the UG. It becomes very wordy and draining, especially when each feature has 3 different subsections for module/lecture/videos.

soc-se-bot commented 1 year ago

Team's Response

We feel that visual aids should only be included when they are better at conveying information than plain words. Including more visuals than needed would lead to unnecessary bloat in the UG and will be treated as white noise by the user. That is something we want to avoid as it degrades the user experience by elongating the UG with no noticeable benefits (requires the user to scroll more and filter out information).

To address the tester's main concern that the UG is very wordy and draining in the second half, perhaps this has more to do with how we were made to read the UG during the practical exam and not how a typical target user would experience the UG in day to day use. Since the practical exam requires us to have a strong understanding of each command so that we can test it, it is natural that we would have to put in a lot more focus into reading the UG and making sure we understand everything there is to be conveyed. Thus, we feel drained from it.

However, a typical target user is unlikely to read the UG in such a manner. Users are more likely to read the "Quick Start Guide" and then proceed to try out the commands for themselves, only reading specific sections of the "Command Manual" when they need it. They would thus not experience the same issues that causes the UG to feel draining. A possible analogy would be like, if I wanted to use the "String" class from the Java API, do I go to the documentation and read up on every single variable, constructor, method, and arguments that the class has? Or do I only read the brief description of the class, play around with the "String" class for a bit, then come back to the documentation only when I encounter an unexpected behaviour or need a specific functionality?

The UG was designed for the target user and thus designed to suit the way we forsee them to use it. We feel that the issue stated does not occur with the intended use of the UG.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]