nus-pe-bot
commented
4 years ago Team's Response
Thank you for your report.
To address your concerns, the reason why the first title was so lengthy was because it was a very specific case, and having a more "concise" wording could have made the sentence ambiguous and the reader might misunderstand the aspect. The second one is what it means, and there is probably no chance for the user to misunderstand the aspect.
It's just a visual "issue" so downgraded to VeryLow.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Thank you for your response, but I disagree. Could have simply said "UI considerations for creating deck while viewing another deck". This is more general and in line with "Naming convention of command keywords", because you're mentioning the general aspect. Elaboration can be done under the body of the section. "Naming convenion of command keywords" is more general than the first aspect naming because it does not mention the details of it i.e. whether CreateDeckCommand and AddCardCommand should share the same command add.
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.VeryLow]
Originally [severity.Low]
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
For the section 4.1.2, the two design considerations were different in terms of the title. The first was very lengthy and elaborate i.e. "Aspect: If the user is already viewing another deck and decides to create a new deck, there was a consideration whether to switch the UI for the user view to the new deck or continue to let the user view the current deck.", and the second simply stated the actual concise aspect "Aspect: Naming convention of command key words."