Similar commands are split up in the UG and placed in different locations

[naz019]

It seems that the team is grouping commands based on whether it is related to exercise, strength, cardio etc. However, this makes the UG unnecessarily long and confusing. Perhaps the team should group similar commands together and explain the different use cases. For exmaple, a general 'add' section, with subsections for 'exercise', 'strength' etc. This avoids the user having to scroll around trying to hunt for the proper commands to use.

[nus-se-script]

Team's Response

We splits by features because the parameters have different names and we believe that it will be easier for the user to follow.
Additionally, even if certain users prefer a different style of documentation (i.e. sectioning the commands as the tester suggested), the current style still does not affect the reader from reading the guide and use the product accordingly, we believe it should be severity "Very Low".

Items for the Tester to Verify

❓ Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: Similar to what we learned for diagrams, having too many details is unecessary and can lead to confusion. The UG's current layout is too specific and adds unneeded length. Furthermore, it gives the UG an incoherent flow, making it hard for users to scroll and find the command they need. Compare the following structures:

1. Current structure

• Help
• View all
• View calories
• Find calories
• Set biometrics
• Add weight
• View weight
• Remove weight
• View maintenance
• View biometrics
• Add strength
• View strength
• Find strength
• Add cardio
• View cardio
• Find cardio
• View exercise
• Remove exercise
• Mark
• Add food
• View food
• Remove food
• Find food

2. Suggested structure

• Help
• Set: biometrics
• Add: weight, strength, cardio, food
• Remove: weight, exercise, food
• View: all, food, calories, weight, biometrics, maintenance, exercise, strength, cardio
• Find: food, calories, exercise, strength, cardio
• Mark

Structure 2 has a much more coherent flow, as if there is an easily-understandable story/guide for the user to follow along with. Besides improving user experience when using the UG, this structure cuts down unnecessary length e.g. Having 9 descriptions for 9 separate 'view' sections vs 1 general description for 1 general 'view' section that splits into subsections based on subcommands.

---

❓ Issue severity

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

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: The current structure erodes user understanding, making the UG inconvenient to use for all users.

---