Even with this change I think the function to squelch watchers
is often misunderstood by the user.
I often get from your users, they thought, check the box (or uncheck in
the new version) would be enough to squelch the watcher.
How about this change:
If you want to squelch a watcher for the current update, then uncheck the box
is enough. But the watcher will get mail for further updates.
If you want to squelch the watcher for all further updates, then you have to
uncheck the box and click on “save changes”.
Even with this change I think the function to squelch watchers
is often misunderstood by the user.
I often get from your users, they thought, check the box (or uncheck in
the new version) would be enough to squelch the watcher.
How about this change:
If you want to squelch a watcher for the current update, then uncheck the box
is enough. But the watcher will get mail for further updates.
If you want to squelch the watcher for all further updates, then you have to
uncheck the box and click on “save changes”.
Even with this change I think the function to squelch watchers
is often misunderstood by the user.
I often get from your users, they thought, check the box (or uncheck in
the new version) would be enough to squelch the watcher.
How about this change:
If you want to squelch a watcher for the current update, then uncheck the box
is enough. But the watcher will get mail for further updates.
If you want to squelch the watcher for all further updates, then you have to
uncheck the box and click on “save changes”.
+1 - this constantly confuses our users.
We’ve chosen to implement a variant of this in RT 3.9; specifically, the
“people” page controls watchers that are squelched durasively, for
multiple updates. The squelch box on the update page only affects the
current transaction.