General feature flaw for fast typist

[L1uY1jun]

Bug Description:

Commands are not optimised for fast typist,

e.g. add-module, add-person, add-task, add-person-to-module or delete-person-from-module etc. Or any features with -module, -task, -person following it in general

These commands are long and are used frequently. However, the lengthiness of these commands make it unoptimised for fast typist.

Recommendation:

For commands with a -module following it, it can be shortened to -mod or -m for example

For commands with a -person following it, it can be shortened to -p for example

For commands with a -task following it, it can be shortened to -t for example

And now, rather than having it as add-person-to-module for example, you can shorten it to be add-p-to-mod which applies to all the features in general

[nus-se-bot]

Team's Response

We agree that the lack of an optimized format is a bug that highlights the sub-optimal design of the command format feature. However, we feel that rectifying it is less important as there are already (slightly-longer) commands that does the same job. Thus, this task is simply an optimization feature at best and we have decided to push it to future iterations.

Since the user cannot attempt to use the missing feature and since there are already valid placeholder commands, we deem that this bug meets the requirement to be a response.NotInScope.

In the event that the bug does not get accepted as a response.NotInScope, we deem that it should be low severity as our target users are fast-typists and thus the addition of a few more letters should not cause too much inconvenience to our users. This is evident from our longest command, delete-person-from-module, which is only 25 characters.

Furthermore, using commands that are acronyms will result in unintuitive commands (e.g., aptm, dpfm, at, am, al, etc.).

However, we recognise that some users may find the long commands troublesome and would have preferred shorter alternatives. It might hence have been wiser had we used the longer intuitive commands while also offering the option for expert users to use acronyms as commands.

For the reasons above, we propose for the severity to be severity.Low instead.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: Justification:

Although it can be considered an optimization, the length of some commands are unnecessarily complicated, e.g. delete-person-from-module when it can be simplified as shown in the example above. Furthermore, the words in the commands are linked by a - character, which is difficult to type.

It is shown that the expectations for the app includes input formatting being optimized for getting things done fast. However, it is not demonstrated with the length and complexity of the commands given.

Furthermore, there was no specification of any design considerations relating to the length of the commands specified. The documentation does not specify whether there will be optimization or changes made to the commands in future iterations. Hence, it should be within responsibilities of the developers that they have failed to consider this.

---

:question: Issue severity

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

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: Justification:

A severity.Medium was given as the above complication to commands apply to all the features provided by the app. This means that it is not only a flaw that causes minor inconvenience. However, as this flaw does not make the product almost unusable for most users, it was rated as severity.Medium instead.

---