The answer is: do NOT show the history of the document while viewing the content. We reviewed Niyam's suggestion for this, and it doesn't work.

Also, taking the user to the "latest version" when she hasn't made a choice yet is the worst possible decision. For one, because the "latest" version (I assume "latest" here is a temporal concept, since the tree-like structure of the history does not provide for any other interpretation) is the one that is least likely to have received any review... after all, it is the latest one.

We also need to make the users aware of the history feature, so they can use it correctly. Skipping the history view works against this goal.

You are correct: in order for the user to view the history, she has to go to the history view. This is correct, and intended. The history view is also the view to which the user arrives when she clicks on a title she has found using search or browse.

Let me clarify: there are two use cases:

1) the user clicks on an LO's title she has found by searching or browsing
2) the user clicks on an LO's title that is in her bookshelf, or included in a composite LO.

In the first case, the user has just stumbled upon the title. She still has no idea about the LO's contents beyond what the title tells her, and no idea about the document's version history. Showing her the "latest version" here has one drawback, and one impossibility. The drawback is that by choosing a version for her, we are precisely reinstating the Wikipedia problem of having one designated "front" page for the title, and changefests will ensue. The drawback is that in the SELF platform, there is no such thing as the "latest version"! So, in this case, when the user clicks on the title, she should be taken to the hostory view of the LO, not directly to its contents.

In the second case, however, someone (the user in the case of the Bookshelf, or the author of the composite LO --- which can be the same or another user) already has reviewed the change history, and latched onto a specific version of the LO, so we must take her directly to that version, and not to the history view. Both the Bookshelf and the composite LO, however, should warn the user about the presence of descendants of each LO in them, so the user can choose whether she wants to upgrade the reference to a new version, and to which.

Was this a better descri[tion?

When a user is looking at the lessons that are present in a collection and clicks on the title of one of them, the system takes him to some version of the LO (presumably the latest?). This is not the expected behaviour: the system cannot know in advance which version the user wants to work on.

Instead, the user should be taken to the versions screen, where he can choose on which version he wants to work, or which version he wants to add to his bookshelf.

The user should only arrive to a specific version of an LO either through the bookshelf or the versions screen.