search

macareonie / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

Potential missing explanation of GUI in UserGuide #7

Open macareonie opened 2 months ago

macareonie commented 2 months ago

There is a missing explanation of the path to saved data under the intro to GUI section as seen below:

image.png

When users continuing reading the subsequent section, they may notice the additional "component" and not understand what it means

image.png

soc-se-bot commented 2 months ago

Team's Response

Severity is very low as this is just an inconsistency in the screenshot we provided, which is a cosmetic issue, and does not cause any problems to the user at all, since the user does not interact with it at all.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

Reason for disagreement: I agree that the severity can be downgraded to VeryLow if the issue was with inconsistent screenshots.

However, I disagree with the point that "users not interacting with" some component means that it "does not cause any problems to the user at all".

Firstly, the UG does mention the path when explaining how saving data works and how advanced users may choose to edit this realodex.json file, so I would not say that users do not interact with it at all. Admittedly, I understand that readers do not interact with the GUI component itself, but there is mention of the same path and options to edit the file at the given path and that can potentially alter the GUI component. Does editing the data file name change the path on the GUI as well or does the application always have a fixed file path on its GUI? Also, if the argument is that users do not interact with it at all, could a consideration potentially be to remove it from the GUI itself to prevent confusion?

Second, my team likewise did not feel a need to explain the path in our own UG initially, but when a non-technical person reviewed the UG (our CS2101 tutor), she did explicitly say to include explanations for it since it was included in the image.

Conclusion:

If this was merely an issue with inconsistent screenshots, I can accept it as a minor cosmetic issue as a VeryLow Documentation bug. However, the justification for it being NotInScope is not convincing and if that was the case, I feel it would not be under cosmetic issues anymore and Severity should be increased depending on how frequently this issue might be encountered.

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.VeryLow`] Originally [`severity.Low`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** As mentioned under my reason for disagreement with response classification, I believe the issue is not just a minor cosmetic issue, and the severity would be bumped up based on how frequent the issue may be encountered and possible consequences. The thing is I do not know whether this classifies as Low or Medium (I know its not VeryLow or High) as it can be argued to have elements of both. I am leaning more towards Low severity.