nus-se-bot
commented
1 day ago Team's Response
Changing bug type from FunctionalityBug to FeatureFlaw
As a team, we agree that not having the appointments being sorted by date and time is a FeatureFlaw, as even though the appointments can be added, we can further enhance the feature for users by ensuring that it is easy to keep track of the appointments (via sorting). The feature itself works as intended and described in the UG, and users can still keep track of the appointments, though it is not the most optimal and easy to do so. Hence we don't think it is a FunctionalityBug.
Reason for labelling this issue as out of scope
That being said, we have already considered this flaw and plan to enhance this feature, as seen from our Developer Guide, under "Planned Enhancements" (you may refer to the screenshot of the DG). Hence we believe the current app can still function normally as intended and that the issue is out of scope for this iteration.
DG screenshot:
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.NotInScope]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: I disagree with the team's classification of this issue as response.NotInScope. I understand that they have mentioned sorting by date in your Planned Enhancements but sorting appointments in a logical, chronological order based on time is not reflected in their Planed Enhancement screenshot which only includes date.
The team's DG as shown in their response only mentions that sorting appointments by date is an important planned enhancement, acknowledging the current limitations of the feature. This recognition suggests that organising appointments in chronological order, was already understood as being critical to the user experience, and addressing it should have been part of the initial implementation scope. Sorting appointments by date and time are two separate bugs and the time issue is not reflected in their planned enhancements. As seen from their appointment class:
Date and Time are stored as two separate data structures and sorting appointments by date would not sort them by time. To implement the complete sorting, they would typically need to write a comparator or similar logic that sorts first by date and then, if dates are equal, by time. Hence, sorting by date and time are two completely separate bugs and time was not reflected in their Planned Enhancements.
Furthermore, the UG stated that MediContacts can "also efficiently keep track of appointments between registered doctors and patients" as seen in the last sentence of the screenshot below. The usability and effectiveness of the add appointment feature directly rely on its ability to display entries in a clear and organised manner, especially for time. Let me elaborate below.
In medical settings, doctors' schedules are typically filled throughout the day with back-to-back appointments, as doctors typically see 11-20 patients daily, meaning an average of 11-20 appointments a day if the doctor only accepts consultations from appointments. Having appointments displayed in chronological time order is not just a nice-to-have but a basic requirement for efficiently managing their workload and minimising confusion. The absence of this essential feature makes it difficult (as seen in the first screenshot) for receptionists to navigate and manage doctors' schedules, potentially leading to errors or overlooked appointments, which can severely impact the clinic's operations and reputation.
Thus, this issue, which sorts by time, is relevant to the current version (v1.6) and should not be considered response.NotInScope.
## :question: Issue type Team chose [`type.FeatureFlaw`] Originally [`type.FunctionalityBug`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]
The appointment timings are not arranged in order which can be disorientating especially for receptionists to check schedules especially since the UI scrolling is very small.