Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.
Description
Although your UG is very detailed, I personally feel that by explaining every single detail and showing the actual and expected output of even a very simple changes (splitting the command into smaller sub parts) made your UG hard to read.
For example, for the edit portion, the example for tags can be combined with the first one, and it will still be effective and convey how tags work in edit.
Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.
Description
Although your UG is very detailed, I personally feel that by explaining every single detail and showing the actual and expected output of even a very simple changes (splitting the command into smaller sub parts) made your UG hard to read.
For example, for the edit portion, the example for tags can be combined with the first one, and it will still be effective and convey how tags work in edit.
Both seems very similar:
[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#374] [original labels: severity.Low type.DocumentationBug]