Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Anchor Links and table of contents not available for both UG and DG #13

Open
ngkaiwen123 opened this issue Apr 14, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Comments

@ngkaiwen123
Copy link
Owner

ngkaiwen123 commented Apr 14, 2023

It was mentioned in the submission requirements that working anchor links and table of contents should be present in the PDF for both UG and Dg. However, they were absent in both of them. This results in major inconveinicence for the reader.

image.png

image.png

@soc-se-bot
Copy link

soc-se-bot commented Apr 18, 2023

Team's Response

This is clearly not severity high:

"A flaw that affects most users and causes major problems for users.i.e., makes the product almost unusable for most users"?

This is the format we followed:

image.png

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

No Table of Contents

Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.



DG has no TOC so the reader has to scroll down through the document to have an outlook of the document.


[original: nus-cs2113-AY2223S2/pe-interim#2538] [original labels: severity.Medium type.DocumentationBug]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]

A table of contents was never mandated in the user guide nor the developer guide.

Items for the Tester to Verify

❓ Issue duplicate status

Team chose to mark this issue as a duplicate of another issue (as explained in the Team's response above)

  • I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]


❓ Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

  • I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]


❓ Issue severity

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

  • I disagree

Reason for disagreement: I agree that the original severity is inaccurate. However, the severity of "very low" seem like the team is downplaying the inconveniences of lacking atable of contents.

Screenshot (509).png

According to this benchmark, lacking a table of contents with working anchor links cause quite a big inconvienience for the reader, whenever we want to scroll to a specific section. This is not just purely a "cosmetic" error, but an actual inconveinience.

The severity should have been downgraded to severity.Medium or at least a severity.Low.


Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants