Description of problem: Contextual help (like in most softwares today) would help customers understand, navigate and use the functionality, especially in a complex application like Satellite where many of the features are multi-step and involve many different pieces (like the Provisioning process). For example, "?" marks in the Web UI where you can mouse-over and click which would offer a brief explanation, example values, and/or a link to the official documentation. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Since this issue was entered in Red Hat Bugzilla, the release flag has been set to ? to ensure that it is properly evaluated for this release.
The best would be to have this "?" mark for every menu, input bar, simply everything not only with example value, link to documentation, but also link to a place where to set it in the webui. What frustrated me was when I was adding a new host it complained so many times that something was missing to be set and it forced me to fill the host declaration again and again and finally it failed to contact local capsule and printed some strange unclear error, finally it was problem I didn't add installation iso or what was it. I know there are steps in documentation which should be done right after installation, but it was go there and set this, then go there and set another thing, such things were more than 5 and still you are not sure if everything is set as at some places documentation is without examples so you don't know what to fill in exactly so you end up trying to set it by hand without any doc. But this is probably for another RFE - please, implement the first time setup as something like click next -> next -> next and you have first time setup completed without "20" steps to do manually on many places. Not very intuitive.
*** Bug 1293194 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
There are many '?' on fields that we have added since 6.0 (2015 is when this bug was open). This bug looks unclosable - there are many vague requests here, it would be much more feasible to look at 6.3 and propose specific improvements, so that we can close the BZ.