nus-pe-bot
commented
2 years ago Team's Response
Thank you for the response :) However, we are rejecting it because despite having the same parameter names, the explanation and functionality for the parameters can be different from each other in different contexts as our UG explains. Not only that, as mentioned on the “how to use this guide” section, the readers can use the hyperlinks to manoeuvre to their sections of interest. Therefore, repetition is necessary. Our file size is also within the permitted limit so this is not an issue.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: While the severity could be lowered, I believe this is still a valid bug. In this case, there already exists a summary of the various parameters in the overview of each section (e.g. doctor related features). instead of requiring users to scroll past the command summary if not required, the users could instead be provided with a hyperlink to the summary of command parameters if they are unsure. As you mentioned, hyperlinks ease the users' ability to manoeuvre the guide, so this could be further utilised. A simple change to the specifications of one of the parameters would need you to iterate through all of the mentions of that parameter and update the information.
:question: Issue severity
Team chose [severity.VeryLow]
Originally [severity.Low]
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
Another factor contributing to the large size of the file is the repetition of the command parameters, as this could be included in an overview of the section with links to access it instead of having several instances of the same summary.