Team's Response

Thank you for pointing this out. However, we do not think that affects the use of the UG for the user. Words are still clear and the user can make out what is being shown.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

[x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: I don't think the team provided sufficient justification for why this bug should be considered NotInScope, and I am still quite unconvinced as to why this bug should not be accepted.

Clarification with Prof regarding judging criteria for NotInScope for DocumentationBugs: https://github.com/nus-cs2103-AY2223S1/forum/issues/471

For this specific case, you can weigh the effort required to update those images against the damage caused by the mismatching images, to decide whether it is acceptable to postpone the fix to a future version. Keep in mind that updating documentation can be time consuming too.

Using the above criteria, I think this bug should not be classified as NotInScope:

Damage caused

I think the mismatch in the UI definitely hinders the users (which is a bug). Extracted from the module website:

Don't interpret 'hinder' as 'impossible to read'. Even formatting issues such as too much/little padding, font size, alignment, inconsistencies, etc. can 'hinder' the reader in the sense they can slow down the reader or require the reader to put more effort than necessary. Those things that 'need to be fixed' are still bugs but of lower severities (depending on how much they hinder the reader -- most likely severity.VeryLow if the issue is purely cosmetic).

When reading the UG, I got really confused why the GUI in my application looked different from the GUI in the UG and had to spend some time checking whether there were any system misconfigurations on my end (which was I also included that disclaimer in my original bug report).

As a reader, having your app look very obviously different from the UG (the font is very obviously different, it immediately jumps out to the reader) definitely causes confusion and slows the reader down in trying to figure out the app's interface.

Imagine if you downloaded an app, and while trying to figure it out, you realise that most of images in the UG look very obviously different from how your actual app looks like. I'm pretty sure most people will get quite confused and spend sometime trying to figure out if they wrongly configured something. (Especially since there was no warning in the UG that the images may differ from how the application actually looks like)

Hence, I think that though not very terrible, there is still some inconvenience brought to the user when reading the UG due to this bug- and therefore, there is some non-negligible damage that should be considered by the team.

Effort required

The team did not really elaborate on the effort required for this bug fix so I had to do some snooping around (sorry) :(

While changing all the images in the UG does take some time, I think that the team could've squeezed this fix in considering that they were updating UG images in the feature sections already in v1.4 (after the UI was updated).

More specifically, the final UI updates were made here, in this PR (https://github.com/AY2223S1-CS2103T-T10-4/tp/pull/139) on 16 October (v1.3).

However, on 6 November the team made revamps to the UG, which included updating the images in the Features section to have markups (including the image I included above in the original bug report) (https://github.com/AY2223S1-CS2103T-T10-4/tp/pull/322).

Since the team was already replacing UG images, I think updating them to the most updated GUI could've been done without a considerably large amount of effort.

As such, I think that the effort needed to update the images aren't very high (considering how they were already updating them), when weighed against the inconvenience brought to the user due to the jarring differences between the images in the UG and the actual product. As such, I don't think the team should've postponed this bug fix to post v1.4. (And therefore, should not be considered NotInScope)

:question: Issue severity

Team chose [severity.VeryLow] Originally [severity.Low]

[ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

chloeelim / pe

Images in UG are not updated #5

Team's Response

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

:question: Issue severity