Wrong benefit for editing batchmate user story

[EmilyOng]

Issue

In the Developer Guide, one user story of choosing the batchmate I want to edit is that the benefit is to write to the correct person, which is ambiguous, as this implies to the reader that this function has an action of establishing a communication/contact channel with the person.

Instead, it should be update the correct person.

[nus-pe-bot]

Team's Response

Dear tester,

In this context, the thing that we are "writing to" is clearly referring to the data. Moreover, this is application is for local storage and should be remote-server independent, hence it should be very ostensible that "writing to" here is done to the data stored locally.

We would have explicitly used the term "message", "chat" or "contact" (like our previous user stories) if we meant an action of establishing a communication/contact channel with the person".

Not to mention, "edit" itself is already a very intuitive signal that we should amend data. (Edit - "prepare for publication by correcting, condensing or otherwise modifying it" -Oxford dictionary), which has nothing to do with communicating with someone.

Also, "write" is defined by Oxford Dictionary as "Computing enter (data) into an electronic or magnetic storage device, or into a particular location in a computer's file system". A developer should be clear of this especially in the context of an IT field.

Indeed "write" when read alone has some ambiguity, but now that it is juxtaposed with "edit" and given the context of this application, it should be very apparent that it is to write to the data of person in the system.

In any case, by your logic, your suggestion of using "update" can also be misinterpreted as communicating to someone, when you give someone the latest information about something. But what makes "update" unambiguous here is the fact that it is juxtaposed with "edit". This is the same for "write". Words when read without any context can be indeterminate, but when used in context should be understood. The fact that you are trying to suggest this to us here is precisely because you have understood the intention.

All in all, we believe that our choice of words is appropriate and unambiguous, therefore we would like to politely reject this.

Thank you.

Items for the Tester to Verify

❓ Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: > In this context, the thing that we are "writing to" is clearly referring to the data. Moreover, this is application is for local storage and should be remote-server independent, hence it should be very ostensible that "writing to" here is done to the data stored locally.

"write to" is fundamentally a grammatical error that is wrongly used in this context. Furthermore, the user story should not be cluttered with implementation details. In this case, the benefit to the user should be to edit the correct person, not to "write to the data".

---

❓ Issue severity

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

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---