Open lynnetteeee opened 6 months ago
We decided that making the explanation more concise can be pushed on future releases and could be considered as an enhancement. Currently, the documentation's aim is to elaborate on the important characteristics of each constraint so as to avoid confusion amongst users due to it being vague and it being too short. Though, we would definitely improve the organization perhaps and conciseness in future releases. NotInScope
.
Team chose [response.NotInScope
]
Reason for disagreement: Currently, it is still a bug though, as per the textbook guidelines (as seen below). The problem isn't about conciseness, but that it really takes additional effort to read and understand the three separate points your team is trying to tell the readers but lumped together in one long paragraph. The elaboration is fine, just that it is slightly hard to read, slows down the reader to get all the points you're trying to bring across, and thus is a Documentation bug of type.Low. It can't be VeryLow as it is not purely cosmetic that does not affect usage (e.g. spacing, padding, typo), but it does affect the usage in the form of slowing readers down, thus I would consider this a Low.
Furthermore, splitting the paragraph up into different sub-points or simply re-arranging/re-structuring the paragraph does not take significant effort, but still affects the reader (unlike grammar errors) hence I don't think it should be counted as NotInScope.
Description & Reason for Severity
There's a section in the UG that details how to edit various types of information. However, the information for editing illness is quite hard to read, potentially slowing down readers as they have to identify the three separate points by themselves - valid illness, removing all illness, and shorter forms, which are combined to one long paragraph instead of separating the points or somehow indicating to the readers that there are 3 points. As this slows readers down, its of low severity and not higher!