Value proposition in the Developer guide could be more accurate

[seriouslia0]

I think that the value proposition that is listed in your user guide really understates how useful this application can be, since this application not only helps you to track your grades and credits, it also helps you manage your progress towards graduation. Hence i think it should be edited to reflected that. Otherwise, you are really undestating how useful the application its and what it is capable of

[nus-se-bot]

Team's Response

Thank you for thinking so highly of our app but we believe this is a subjective opinion and this is what we think our app is capable for.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: I disagree, the value proposition of the application, broadly speaking, will determine the features present in your applications, and hence whether or not things are a 'feature flaw'. For example, if we were to really take the value proposition to be merely "managing module grades and credits", then the features of the progress bar to track graduation requirements would be considered a poor feature which doesn't fit in with the rest of the features, especially given that the information in the progress bar is likely to be inaccurate given that you do not provide a way for the user to verify if the module entered is indeed part of the graduation requirements. So it is either of the two following possibilities : 1. The value proposition is accurate and alot of the features provided are redundant or a poor fit or 2. The value proposition could be amended to the more accurate statement which covers the applications ability to track graduation requirements. Since the features included such as the one formerly mentioned can be subsumed under "track graduation requirements", that should be clearly reflected within the value proposition. Since developers are also likely to improve on further iterations based on the value proposition put forth. This is not a high severity given that this does not affect the user, but i believe this should be a documentation bug nonetheless since it should be changed. Looking at the target user and value proposition here, it seems more likely the one in your documentation was either not / only partially updated.

---