Inconsistent command names

[heejet]

The command names for atomic habits, focus timer are using "short form" like hb and ft. However the command for the other modes like self reflection and gamification are spelt out. E.g. reflect and gamif.

Consider using similar style like rf or gf so that the user can remember the commands easier.

I think this is a very small issue and is up to your consideration.

[soc-se-bot]

Team's Response

Thank you for the suggestion. we respectfully disagree, as with sufficient usage and reference to our UserGuide/help command, users can remember the commands all the same, even with the current naming scheme for the commands, since all our commands are relatively short.

We can see a similar notion in the industry, since in Linux, the basic commands don't have a 'pattern' to the command naming scheme either. For example, the ls command stands for 'list'(one word), but there's also the mount command. On the other hand, Linux provides the cd command, which stands for 'change directory'(two words). Regular Linux CLI users do not find these commands difficult to learn, despite the lack of a standard naming 'pattern', since they are all relatively short.

As such, we disagree with the need for a standardised naming 'pattern' for our commands. Thank you for the suggestion nonetheless.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: I disagree with you.

with sufficient usage and reference to our UserGuide/help command, users can remember the commands all the same

Any command format no matter how counter intuitive can be forcefully memorized by users when given enough time. The key is making the commands intuitive to the user such that they are able commit it to memory easily. Having inconsistent command names would cause minor inconveniences to the user because they would have to constantly refer to the help or your UserGuide, compromising on efficiency.

One of the principles of CLI application design is human first design having a consistent command name fits this principles because it becomes more intuitive for humans to use your application when you have consistent command names because users can remember the generic structure of one command and replicate it for another command without encountering errors.

I acknowledge that given the short time we were given to do this project, this could be flagged as OutOfScope. However from your reply this seems to be inside your scope and therefore this is a cosmetic issue since the functionalities of your application still works. Thus a severity of VeryLow is justified.

Thank you for the reply nonetheless.

---