DG Glossary does not define some terms present in user stories

[chaaaaun]

For example, terms such as "contributor" and "interviewee", while defined in the UG, are not similarly defined in the DG glossary. For consistency, they should be.

[nus-pe-script]

Team's Response

Both these issues regard terms not being defined in glossary

The 'Original' Bug

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

Missing glossary table

Perhaps a glossary table can be included for the terms used in the documentation such as Contributor, Interviewee and Outlet to reduce ambiguity?

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S2/pe-interim#3203] [original labels: severity.Low type.DocumentationBug]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

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

Thanks for the insightful feedback regarding the definition of such terms in the UG, with reference to the target user of PressPlanner shown below from the UG,

The intended users are freelance journalists who would likely know the terms Contributor, Interviewee and Outlet much better than us developing a software as these are occupational terms rather than technical terms which the users with little technical background would then find trouble understanding.

Additionally, these terms are defined under the Add Article Command in the User Guide to reduce ambiguity:

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: While I agree that my issue is similar in content to what the other tester has reported, it is clear that the developer team has not addressed my issue adequately in their response, due to the fact that they have treated it as duplicate to the other issue.

In my issue, I state that:

terms such as "contributor" and "interviewee", while defined in the UG, are not similarly defined in the DG glossary

Notably, I acknowledge that such terms are sufficiently defined in the UG, but my issue was moreso raised due to deficiencies in the DG.

In their response, they make no mention of the DG at all. They bring up the point that "the intended users are freelance journalists". However, I believe that might not be the case for readers of the DG, who are likely to be fellow developers and not freelance journalists. They themselves state that developers are less likely to understand the terms that they have not defined in their DG.

freelance journalists who would likely know the terms Contributor, Interviewee and Outlet much better than us developing a software as these are occupational terms rather than technical terms

Thus, this reinforces my point that these terms that they have defined in their UG should be similarly defined in the DG, a point that the team has not responded to.

---

❓ Issue response

Team chose [response.NotInScope]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: I feel that based on my above justification on why this issue should not be considered a duplicate, it similarly warrants a separate consideration on whether or not it is in scope, and not lumped together with the other issue.

---