soc-se-bot
commented
2 months ago Team's Response
I do get your point by using meetingIndex to edit a meeting instead. On our end, our design considerations involved allowing an association between client and meeting, this would be confusing to a user also since if there are many changes to the meetings for many clients, the user would have to scroll through many meetings just to find that particular meeting index to edit. We want to make it easy for the user to use it in tandem with our 'view c' command which would instantly filter and show the meetingIndex with respect to a particular client for even better user experience.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I would disagree with their statement, especially with their reasoning that they want users to use it in tandem with 'view c' command. Instead, it causes more trouble for the user, as the user would have to first run the 'view c' command, and after doing that then they can use 'editMeeting'.
This means that 'editMeeting' relies on the fact that the user has run the view command. This tip of doing the view command, then editMeeting was also never mentioned in the user guide. As a user tester myself, I was also initially confused as to how editMeeting is used, as the meetings have their own index shown in the UI, but that index is essentially useless and misleading.
Thus, I still believe that it is a feature flaw that causes complications for the user as the command is complicated to understand, and relies on a previous unrelated command to fully function properly
The description for editMeeting is very long and convoluted. In the user guide, it says that MEETING_INDEX refers to the index number of the meeting for the specific client.
But in the meetings section, the meetings are indexed based on when they are added. An easier way to edit a meeting should just be through referencing the meeting indexed, instead of the index of the meeting with respect to the client (as that's how it's implemented right now)