nus-se-bot
commented
3 years ago Team's Response
Explanation of reassign command is intentionally long and detailed to ensure that all important information is conveyed to the user, which we believe is better than having a less detailed explanation and leaving users to figure out the command by themselves. The length of the explanation can also be attributed to the fact that we have provided two command formats for the convenience of the user so it is reasonable that the length of the explanation for reassign is around twice the length of other commands.
Severity has been dropped to very low as the usage should not be affected negatively but rather be enhanced as the clarity of the explanation is increased.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I do not think that it is necessary to put one page of explanation for one command. But we can find that explanation for two formats have duplicate parts (point 1-2). Also, your team lists two examples but each example uses three repeated lines to explan examples. However, these two examples are same in logic. Do we need to repeat explaining two almost identical things? Anyway, reading one page of explanation makes me very tiring. It has made me lose interest in using this command.
I recommond the team to simplify it and make it more human-readable.
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.VeryLow]
Originally [severity.Low]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: This is regarding readability and understandability of UG. Marking it as very low is not suitable.
The explanation of reassign command takes almost one page which looks very tiring and it is difficult to catch the main points.