But if a regular user sees detailed information, they may not know how to act on it.
The problem we have today is that they regular users already don't know how to act on it and they don't really understand what it means - that the action is queued and will be executed at some point in the future. So what they do, is that they just shrug their shoulders, close the browser window, then open another browser window and launch, again, the exact same operation (2-3-4 times). My hunch here is that we should tell them more about what's happening, not necessarily forcing them to go through the admin. If they can know:
what content the action is on
who fired that action
then they have a chance to resolve, at least mentally, the situation, and better understand what is happening (e.g. they could realize that it's themselves that have fired the other action, they could contact directly the person that fired the action, etc.).
For this reason, I believe the request can be closed as a duplication.
It's not a duplication because this issue can be fixed without fixing XWIKI-19215. Of course, if XWIKI-19215 is fixed, the need of this one could be fixed as well. Basically this one is the minimal version of XWIKI-19215 . The benefit vs. cost of fixing this one is very good, to me, higher than the one of XWIKI-19215 , and by not replacing this one with XWIKI-19215 I hope to be able to have it fixed faster (it's a low hanging, very sweet and juicy fruit).
Anca Luca on 27/Feb/26 18:42
bq. But if a regular user sees detailed information, they may not know how to act on it.
The problem we have today is that they regular users _already_ don't know how to act on it and they don't really understand what it means - that the action is queued and will be executed at some point in the future. So what they do, is that they just shrug their shoulders, close the browser window, then open another browser window and launch, again, the exact same operation (2-3-4 times). My hunch here is that we should tell them more about what's happening, not necessarily forcing them to go through the admin. If they can know: * what content the action is on * who fired that action
then they have a chance to resolve, at least mentally, the situation, and better understand what is happening (e.g. they could realize that it's themselves that have fired the other action, they could contact directly the person that fired the action, etc.).
bq. For this reason, I believe the request can be closed as a duplication.
It's not a duplication because this issue can be fixed without fixing XWIKI-19215. Of course, if XWIKI-19215 is fixed, the need of this one could be fixed as well. Basically this one is the minimal version of XWIKI-19215 . The benefit vs. cost of fixing this one is very good, to me, higher than the one of XWIKI-19215 , and by not replacing this one with XWIKI-19215 I hope to be able to have it fixed faster (it's a low hanging, very sweet and juicy fruit).
Anca Luca on 27/Feb/26 18:43
bq. But if a regular user sees detailed information, they may not know how to act on it.
The problem we have today is that regular users _already_ don't know how to act on it and they don't really understand what it means - that the action is queued and will be executed at some point in the future. So what they do, is that they just shrug their shoulders, close the browser window, then open another browser window and launch, again, the exact same operation (2-3-4 times). My hunch here is that I think we should could tell them more about what's happening, not without necessarily forcing them to go through the admin. If My hunch here is that, if they can could know: * what content the action is on * who fired that action
then they'd have a chance to resolve, at least mentally, the situation, and better understand what is happening (e.g. they could realize that it's themselves that have fired the other action, they could contact directly the person that fired the action, etc.).
bq. For this reason, I believe the request can be closed as a duplication.
It's not a duplication because this issue can be fixed without fixing XWIKI-19215. Of course, if XWIKI-19215 is fixed, the need of this one could be fixed as well. Basically this one is the minimal version of XWIKI-19215 . The benefit vs. cost of fixing this one is very good, to me, higher than the one of XWIKI-19215 , and by not replacing this one with XWIKI-19215 I hope to be able to have it fixed faster (it's a low hanging, very sweet and juicy fruit).
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v9.3.0#930000-sha1:287aeb6)
If image attachments aren't displayed, see this article.
