did not fulfill NFR

[m1oojv]

5. Commands should be easy to remember and succinct. i do not think u fufilled this NFR

inconsistent commands add affiliation uses : addaffn then delete uses : removeah

delete affiliation history uses :: removeah but list affiliation history uses : affnh

inconsistent in representing affiliation difficult to remember

[soc-se-bot]

Team's Response

Thanks for raising it up. However, after some thought, we do believe it is actually succinct and straightforward to remember.

• You compared adding affiliations to the removal of affiliation history which are two commands of different concepts. We used removeah as our command word since we are clearing the affiliation history of a person. It would have not been ideal to implement using removeaffnhist as it is obviously not succinct.

• You compared deleting affiliation history to listing affiliation history which are also two commands of different concepts. Listing of affiliations and affiliation history uses affn and affnh respectively, which are comparable notations.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that that there are better command words to utilise out there, but we believe our current implementation is sufficient in fulfilling point 5 of our NFR.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: help , add , list, edit, find, addaffn, affn, affnh, removeah, spec, delete, nok, shift, onduty, info, clear, exit

Dear Team,

While I appreciate your rationale behind the chosen command words and your belief in their succinctness and straightforwardness, I would like to reiterate the importance of consistency in command naming conventions, especially in relation to the Non-Functional Requirement (NFR) that commands should be easy to remember and succinct.

There is a noticeable inconsistency in the command structure, which can impact ease of memorization and usage. For example, the command 'addaffn' is used to add an affiliation, while 'removeah' is used to clear all affiliation history. The inconsistency in prefix ('add' vs. 'remove') and abbreviation style ('affn' vs. 'ah') can lead to confusion. While some commands are intuitive and direct, like 'add', 'list', or 'delete', others like 'affnh' (for listing affiliation history) and 'removeah' (for clearing affiliation history) require the user to remember specific abbreviations and their meanings.

Predictable patterns in command naming facilitate ease of use. However, the provided commands lack a uniform pattern. For instance, 'addaffn' for adding an affiliation contrasts with 'nok' for adding next of kin, despite both being addition operations. Similarly, 'affn' and 'affnh' for listing affiliations and affiliation history, respectively, might be confusing due to the lack of the list keyword compared to the straightforward 'list'.

An easy-to-remember command structure often follows a consistent verb-noun pattern. However, this pattern is not uniformly applied across all commands. For example, 'shift' and 'onduty' do not clearly follow this pattern, potentially making them harder to remember and understand compared to more straightforward commands like 'add', 'list', or 'delete'.

There is also no difference in the commands that specifically work on specific roles only like 'nok' only works on patients while 'shift' only works on staff.

Certain commands may not be immediately clear or easy to remember due to their complexity or length. For instance, 'removeah' might not intuitively convey that it's used to clear all affiliation history. Users might expect 'removeah' to be more similar as deleting an affiliation history instead of clearing all affiliation history. Something more direct like 'clearah' or a similar variant.

1. Consistency and Memorability: The key to creating commands that are easy to remember is consistency in their structure and notation. When commands related to similar functionalities (like managing affiliations) have markedly different structures (such as 'addaffn' vs 'removeah' and 'affnh'), it can create confusion and make it more challenging for users to remember them. Users typically benefit from a predictable pattern in command naming, which aids in recall and usability.

2. User-Centric Approach: In designing command names, it is crucial to consider them from the user's perspective. While the current implementation might seem logical from a development standpoint, users may find it less intuitive. The goal should be to minimize the cognitive load on users in remembering and differentiating between commands.

3. Ease of Use vs. Technical Justification: While the technical justification for the chosen command names is understood, the primary focus should be on user experience. The aim should be to make the user's interaction with the application as seamless and straightforward as possible. This might sometimes mean choosing more user-friendly command names over more technically descriptive ones.

4. Potential for Improvement: Acknowledging that there are better command words to utilize is a step in the right direction. However, considering that ease of use and memorability are crucial aspects of the NFR, it would be beneficial to explore these alternatives further to enhance the user experience.

Given these considerations, I suggest a review of the command naming conventions to ensure they align more closely with the NFR of being easy to remember and succinct. While the current implementation might be sufficient, there is always room for improvement, especially when it comes to enhancing the user experience.

Additionally, I'd like to highlight the guidance provided by the professor regarding the handling of bugs. A rejection of a bug should be reserved for cases where the bug is deemed irrelevant or unnecessary to address, both in the current context and in the foreseeable future. However, in this instance, the issue at hand is directly relevant and necessary to address. Considering this perspective, the issue should not be dismissed as inconsequential or irrelevant. Instead, it should be acknowledged as a genuine area for improvement, in line with the goal of enhancing user experience and interface intuitiveness. Therefore, I do not think Rejected is the correct response.

In summary, while some of the commands are straightforward and succinct, others exhibit inconsistencies in structure and abbreviation logic, which could make them less memorable and more difficult to use, especially for new or non-technical users. This analysis suggests that the command structure could be further refined to better meet the NFR of having commands that are both easy to remember and succinct. This is very important especially for MediSync due to the target group being head nurses who are medical workers that do not have time when on duty to refer to the user guide in order to use the application.

---

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.Medium`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]

---