Technical terminology that might not be understood by target users used in Add medical history section.

[tau-bar]

Expected:

• Expected Behaviour: To use terminology understood by the clinic staff (the target users).

Actual:

• Actual Behaviour: Language such as "one-indexed" is used in the user guide, target users might not understand.

• Why that severity? Low, as it will cause some inconvenience to users who don't understand.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Go to add a medical history section.

Screenshots:

[nus-pe-bot]

Team's Response

We are open to bugs and feedback.

However, we sincerely disagree that "one-indexed" is a technical terminology that clinic staff cannot understand.

In addition, even if it is a bug, this should be purely cosmetic, with severity.veryLow.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: ### Response I disagree. It is unknown to the developer team whether clinic staff would understand what "one-indexed" means.

Rationale

The User Guide of this team has a glossary section, which could have been used to put the meaning of one-indexed. This seems like an oversight by the developer team in considering their target users, as it is unknown to the developer team whether the staff would know the meaning of one-indexed (and no evidence provided that the target users would know what it means). From the results of a Google search, this does not seem to be common terminology, and it is a relatively technical term (shown in the evidence section below).

Evidence

Google search of 'one-indexed':

---

:question: Issue severity

Team chose [severity.VeryLow] Originally [severity.Low]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: ### Response I disagree, this should remain a severity.Low, for multiple reasons.

Rationale

1. This bug could cause minor inconveniences to the target users who might not know what 'one-indexed' means, as they have to search the meaning, given that the meaning was not given in the User Guide. As stated by the module website, a low bug means that it "causes a minor inconvenience only". While this bug is minor, it still does cause inconvenience to the reader.

2. This is not a severity.VeryLow. As mentioned by the module website, a very low bug is purely cosmetic, and this is clearly not a typo/cosmetic issue. Suppose in this case, the word 'specified' was misspelt as 'specifid' instead. The user still can understand and does not affect the user's reading experience. That would be considered a severity.VeryLow. This is not similar, and is not a cosmetic bug. Therefore, it should remain a severity.Low.

Evidence

---