nus-pe-bot
commented
3 years ago Team's Response
Intended phrasing. This is a subjective suggestion, (thus very low), and to which I disagree.
Also to rebutt your point, " Simply saying the intervals inputted by the user are most likely to be small would be sufficient." will be inappropriate. One could have an interval of 365 for annual sessions, and this is not an issue (a situation we perfectly accept). The issue is not about the size of the interval, but much more complicated. It could be a question of does a interval1 = 8 ever overlap with interval2= 30, given a difference x days difference in the starting date of the 2 sessions. It was deemed as perceived by the human brain was the most simple way to explain the situation.
TLDR: Explaining the issue is as complicated as the solution; this is a contemplated and intended phrasing.
Thank you for your suggesting. Perhaps you can think about what the issue mentioned here actually means, it's complicated but interesting to think about.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Firstly, the very fact that the author needs to explain themselves with what they mean by the phrase underlined above suggests that the phrase originally is not exactly the best. Secondly, I do agree my choice of words is not good either (in fact it is as vague as the original phrasing, if not more vague), but it does not excuse the team because I do feel that the sentence could be clarified.
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.VeryLow]
Originally [severity.Medium]
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
I believe there are better ways to phrase this instead of what is provided in the image below. Simply saying the intervals inputted by the user are most likely to be small would be sufficient.