soc-pe-bot
commented
4 months ago Team's Response
Accepted but the severity should be very low instead of high due to how the proper command format is available in every other location except for the command summary. A new user is unlikely to jump straight to the summary and would instead go through the explanations of the commands and even then the error message in the application provides the proper requirements.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.VeryLow]
Originally [severity.High]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: Originally labelled as severity.High, but after considering the explanation, I believe it should be severity.Medium instead.
I don't think that it can be said to veryLow, since it is not purely cosmetic, and does not affect usage of the command summary table. My viewpoint was that If both the command format and the example in the command summary table for the command is wrong, this means that using the command summary table alone, one would not be able to use the command at all. If the user has to refer to the actual section to check what is the format, then the command summary table is not of use.
An analogy for this would be a cheatsheet summary table brought to an exam. It would be hard to agree that wrong formulae in the cheatsheet would simply be a cosmetic issue, since it would heavily affect the usability. Hence it is a bit tough to call it a veryLow severity issue. Additionally, given the reference for documentation bugs that broken links can be categorized as Medium:
I don't think that it should be veryLow.
Secondly, the target audience for the command format summary is not new users but users who roughly know the format, but want to be refreshed on the format. Hence, while a new user is unlikely to jump straight to summary, it isn't quite relevant. Additionally, the error message as shown does not reveal the command format, it states that weight can only be alphanumeric without showing the format.
The reason why I originally felt it was High was because I was left quite confused as to why it didn't work during the PE itself, and spent some time looking at the command format, scrolling back to the specific command section and comparing, and scrutinizing the command to which I realized the error. I do think it caused quite an inconvenience, from a user testing point of view. However, upon deliberation, what the dev team response said has merit, High seems unsuitable, but I disagree with veryLow, and think that Medium would be more suited instead.
Correct Format:
Shown:
Trying:
Makes command summary for editm totally unusable since its both the format and the example that is wrong. Not a rare use case as well, causes problem for most users, since editc is a key command.