UG: Neatness

[DDzuikeai]

It's better to give every feature an index in the UG, and change them to sub parts of the Features.

This can make the structure more clearer.

For example, if the Features is with index 3, Add a new contact may have an index of 3.1, which denotes a clearer structure.

[nus-pe-bot]

Team's Response

We decided that unordered list was sufficient because the UG is rather short, much shorter than DG. The write up for each of the explanations are also rather short and with only 8 commands, and the return to list of Features return hyperlink provided at the end of every command, we think our current format is clear enough. Changing the unordered list to the ordered list i think would give minimal gain in neatness.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: This issue isn't just about the neatness, it's also about a standard format, a clear structure. You should build a clear structure at the very beginning to write the UG. So later on you can just add in more staff following the standard. Only 8 commands also shouldn't be a reasonable response, because this may not be your final version. And also, at the very beginning of your UG, you do have index for each part:

But in the text, all indexes are missing, which is inconsistent. I just list one screenshot here:

Also, the detailed explanation sections of your 8 commands should reflect a affiliation rather than a parallel relationship with the Features section. Otherwise structure is quite confusing.

---

:question: Issue severity

Team chose [severity.VeryLow] Originally [severity.Medium]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: I do think the structure is a bit mess in the UG. And this should be quite a severe problem needed to be solved. If the structure isn't refactored, there isn't much room left for future improvement and will just get more confusing.

---