Medium vs Moderate severity?

[misaugstad]

Brief description of problem/feature

We've begun the process of moving label severity from a 5-point scale to a 3-point scale. So far, we've been using the terms "low", "medium", and "high" to describe the severity levels. I'm wondering if we should be using the word "moderate" instead of "medium"?

I don't have any real reason for the change other than it sounding more natural to me in some situations. For example, I was adding tooltips with example images for each severity level, and was adding the title "Medium severity example"; it sounded funny to me and I just realized that it's because I want it to say "Moderate severity example".

It's weird because I like "low severity -> moderate severity -> high severity" better than "low severity -> medium severity -> high severity", yet I prefer "severity: low -> medium -> high" over "severity: low -> moderate -> high"...

It' would be a good time to make such a change because we're still early in the process of rolling out of the new scale.

@yeisenberg and @jonfroehlich do either of you have opinions on the use of medium v moderate?

[jonfroehlich]

I totally get this view. Thanks for sharing it. But I think “medium” is a lower literacy word and simpler to read/understand in most instances than moderate.

Sent from phone

On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 3:38 PM Michael Saugstad @.***> wrote:

Brief description of problem/feature

We've begun the process of moving label severity from a 5-point scale to a 3-point scale. So far, we've been using the terms "low", "medium", and "high" to describe the severity levels. I'm wondering if we should be using the word "moderate" instead of "medium"?

I don't have any real reason for the change other than it sounding more natural to me in some situations. For example, I was adding tooltips with example images for each severity level, and was adding the title "Medium severity example"; it sounded funny to me and I just realized that it's because I want it to say "Moderate severity example".

It's weird because I like "low severity -> moderate severity -> high severity" better than "low severity -> medium severity -> high severity", yet I prefer "severity: low -> medium -> high" over "severity: low -> moderate -> high"...

It' would be a good time to make such a change because we're still early in the process of rolling out of the new scale.

@yeisenberg https://github.com/yeisenberg and @jonfroehlich https://github.com/jonfroehlich do either of you have opinions on the use of medium v moderate?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ProjectSidewalk/SidewalkWebpage/issues/3638, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAML55KGMWEDZAMQMWZMJ6DZT6PHDAVCNFSM6AAAAABNLK64Y2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGQ4TKNRZHAYDOOI . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[misaugstad]

Totally agree!

[yeisenberg]

Hi there, I was looking back at our other thread on GitHub. We had been chatting about the option for no issues, minor issues, major issues for positive features, and for negative features, the no issues would be greyed out. Or no issues, some issues, many issues would be a more easy to read option maybe? I think it was tabled due to other priorities, but wondering about reevaluating? I guess my main issue is about how there is a lot of error between low and medium. Are we too far along with the other scheme?

Best, Yochai

--

Yochai Eisenberg

He/Him/His

Assistant Professor

Disability and Human Development

UIC College of Applied Health Sciences

P: (312) 413-9410 | E: @.**@.> | W: ahs.uic.eduhttp://www.ahs.uic.edu/

1640 W. Roosevelt Rd. | 705 DHSP, MC626 | Chicago, IL 60608

Schedule an appointment via Calendlyhttps://calendly.com/yochaie/45min

---

From: Michael Saugstad @.> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 6:08:56 PM To: ProjectSidewalk/SidewalkWebpage @.> Cc: Eisenberg, Yochai @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [ProjectSidewalk/SidewalkWebpage] Medium vs Moderate severity? (Issue #3638)

CAUTION: External Sender

Totally agree!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/ProjectSidewalk/SidewalkWebpage/issues/3638#issuecomment-2319322454, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADHR5FPRPI5U7R3Z5MJGPW3ZT6SYRAVCNFSM6AAAAABNLK64Y2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMJZGMZDENBVGQ. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

This email originated from outside the University of Illinois System. Use caution when replying, clicking links, or opening attachments. DO NOT reply to any requests asking you to reply from a personal account or SMS.

[jonfroehlich]

Yah, I don't remember where we landed on this. @misaugstad, what you are your thoughts? Essentially, this pushes the 3-point scale to a 2-point scale: rather than low, medium, high severity, it's simply "minor issue" or "major issue"

Agree that for positive features (like curb ramps), "low severity" doesn't make sense if it's a perfect curb ramp (then "no issue" would be more fitting).

Also, @misaugstad, could you link back to the other GitHub thread directly so it's easy to find/click on from this one.

[misaugstad]

Here is the issue #3306, in particular it may be worth starting with this comment where I included a lengthy discussion that we had on Slack along with a summary of where I think we landed.

Personally, I prefer having a 3-point scale for everything, with different labels for the positive features!

[jonfroehlich]

Thanks Mikey. What do you mean different labels for the positive features?

Sent from phone

On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:40 AM Michael Saugstad @.***> wrote:

Here is the issue #3306 https://github.com/ProjectSidewalk/SidewalkWebpage/issues/3306, in particular it may be worth starting with this comment https://github.com/ProjectSidewalk/SidewalkWebpage/issues/3306#issuecomment-2159528921 where I included a lengthy discussion that we had on Slack along with a summary of where I think we landed.

Personally, I prefer having a 3-point scale for everything, with different labels for the positive features!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ProjectSidewalk/SidewalkWebpage/issues/3638#issuecomment-2322044079, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAML55LTUJ6DU6HCADQ3SXLZUCU73AVCNFSM6AAAAABNLK64Y2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMRSGA2DIMBXHE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[misaugstad]

I suppose that "labels" is overloaded! I mean that the scale for positive features would still be a 3-point scale, it would just be none/minor/major rather than low/medium/high.