nus-pe-bot
commented
2 years ago Team's Response
Even In the screenshot, the rows are visible. The "essential" and "optional" rows are also delineated with a line. The other sub rows are even colored differently.
This issue is with respect to cosmetic functions and should not be labelled severity.high. It is at most a severity.veryLow.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: The line observed in the screenshot is one introduced by pagination. In reality no such line exists in the UG. While there exists whitespace between each subrow of each category, the main issue I was concerned with is the delineation between essential and optional.
No clear delineation exists to separate optional and essential contrary to the response by the team.
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.VeryLow]
Originally [severity.High]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: This is not only a cosmetic issue but also a severe one of accessibility. We cannot discern between optional and essential inputs without reading through the documentation, where this is essential knowledge to know to identify what is needed to format our inputs correctly.
The fact that we need to discern the delineation ourselves defeats the purpose of the table to make it easy to reference by the user
Table outlines such as rows are not visible for lesson parameters table. This is particularly significant here as I am unable to discern where essential ends and optional starts. This information is critical as the user needs to know what fields are compulsory to use the feature, and would have to figure out where the delineation lies using guess and check which defeats the purpose of the table.