KinTatHo / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

[UG] Confusing analytics feature #11

Open KinTatHo opened 2 months ago

KinTatHo commented 2 months ago

As a user, this feature gets too confusing without more diagrams on how each index works, especially when the markloan feature deletes the loan. Furthermore, the only diagram shown is for "Pearl" who does not exist in the given JSON file, and I am unable to see how to mimic the pie charts for "Pearl".

Could be better with more diagrams: Screenshot 2024-04-19 at 5.29.35 PM.pngScreenshot 2024-04-19 at 5.29.35 PM

Not sure how to get this: Screenshot 2024-04-19 at 5.34.55 PM.pngScreenshot 2024-04-19 at 5.34.55 PM

nus-pe-bot commented 2 months ago

[IMPORTANT!: Please do not edit or reply to this comment using the GitHub UI. You can respond to it using CATcher during the next phase of the PE]

Team's Response

Thanks for the feedback

Pls refer to #846

We feel that this is a duplicate since we could add further examples in the UG as to how the analytics command work, which solves the problem as well.

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

Missing documentation for indices in analytics

Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.


image.png

Details:

  • The indices Reliability, Impact, and Urgency were only mentioned in this screenshot, in the UG.
  • Only the calculations for each index are included in the UG.
  • The design decisions for choosing these indices, as well as the significance of each of these indices are missing from both the UG and DG.
  • The users might not understand how to use these indices, thus reducing the usability of this feature.

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#1085] [original labels: severity.Medium type.DocumentationBug]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]

Thank you for your feedback. We are sorry you encountered this bug and would like to accept it. However, we wish to change the severity to low, for the following reasons:

  • For the user guide, this explanation is largely sufficient since they only need a high level understanding of what the indices mean(Reliability, Impact, Urgency). Some examples can definitely help users have a better and more understanding of what this command does. Hence we accept the bug. However, this alone doesn't warrant a medium severity since it only causes a minor incovenience to users.

  • Regarding the 3rd point, there was no requirement that we had to explain the design decisions for every single new feature in our DG. In particular, refer to the screenshot below:

image.png

which is taken from this link: https://nus-cs2103-ay2324s2.github.io/website/admin/tp-deliverables.html#deliverable-developer-guide-dg

This is a duplicate of #2193, both of which can be solved via the first bullet point.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue duplicate status

Team chose to mark this issue as a duplicate of another issue (as explained in the Team's response above)

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your reason]