nus-pe-bot
commented
4 years ago Team's Response
The first statement, that "the application will only accept EITHER a person index OR a group index, never both", was meant to stress the point that the application will not accept both index parameters. It does not logically exclude the possibility of the application accepting neither, because implicit in this statement is the qualifier "IF an index is entered", although we agree it could have been clearer to state this qualifier explicitly.
It is indeed a valid source of confusion for some users, who may possibly misunderstand; but not for many others who would interpret it correctly, which is why we believe the severity of this issue is Low. Moreover, it should not affect their usage of the command, as long as they have cross-referred to the other parts of this section, such as the exhaustive list of possible command formats given further below, included precisely to minimise such confusion. This list is depicted in the screenshot attached. Also, we believe that since this is more a matter of subjective grammatical/syntactic interpretation, our group should not be penalised for not foreseeing various other ways it could be interpreted; such feedback is precisely what we validly need to make the user guide as clear as possible for all users.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.NotInScope]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Dear grader,
I disagree that this issue if NotInScope because it is right at the format part in UG, the most important part for a user.
Any error in this section should be seriously treated.
Additionally, the response from the team contradicts to the UG following section because in some cases, like view time and view all, neither fields is needed. Therefore, this should be considered a flaw.
As mentioned in a nother error report, I have provided some solutions to this issue:
A suggested way is to specify yet another notation, e.g. {} that represnts fields whose existence depends on commands.
Another way is to explain view place. view activity separately, each with a format explanation, which is clearer.
Based on these, I believe this is a bug that should not be simply covered up with a NotInScope. There are many wise way to solve this problem, and we should solve it if we can.
Hope you can understand. Thank you!
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.Low]
Originally [severity.High]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Dear grader,
I stick to my decision because this is a fundamental error that directly relates to the meaning of this whole command. UG format part should be written with great caution because this is where the user will refer to and closely follow.
This error contradicts with the following examples (as mentioned by the team), which can cause inconvenience and confusion to the user. For documentationBug, it is considered heavy and serious.
Hope you can understand. Thank you!
It first claims that either field is needed. Then it says whether it is needed depends on the specific parameter, which might cause the confusion of the user.