nus-pe-bot
commented
10 months ago Team's Response
We disagree with the tester's point of "irrelevant details being shown to the target user" when referring to placeholder values as these indicate that the fields have not been filled in (equivalent to a field left blank). The ability to leave fields as their default values in fact reinforces relevance since there is no requirement to enter irrelevant information. Additionally, they do not prevent the relevant information from being displayed to the user once that information has been entered.
We also disagree that "realtors... will have to memorise or refer to [the] user guide for default values". For reference, the current default values include "123" as a phone number, "Placeholder Street, Singapore" as an address, and "default@email.com" as an email, etc. which are sufficiently characteristic of being placeholder values and the user should be able to intuitively identify this upon close inspection.
Hence this implementation does not contradict the user story that states realtors ought to be able to keep track of their clients' relevant details.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I disagree with the developer team's viewpoint that placeholder values are equivalent to a blank field, especially visually. When a user wants to see relevant information, a non-empty field among blank fields would catch their eye more than a non-default value among default values. The default values thus serve as visual haze in that sense, obscuring the user from quickly viewing relevant information.
Though I've made the claim that "realtors... will have to memorise or refer to [the] user guide for default values" which the developer team have justifiably contested, I still maintain that my bigger point hinges upon something that the developer team has said: that "the user should be able to intuitively identify this upon close inspection." Users being inconvenienced to have to do this "close inspection" for relevance of information basically shows that there is unnecessary irrelevant information that could be better presented (for instance, blank fields). Hence, this motivates my stand to flag this issue as a documentation bug in the user story implemented.
Developer guide proposes must-have user story of realtors being able to keep track of relevant details via adding users and addresses to their app. (#2 in list)
This will inconvenience realtors who will have to memorise or refer to user guide for default values in order to realise which fields of buyers/sellers are relevant and which are not. Hence must-have user story in developer guide is not fulfilled by implementation of existing feature.