I think the location is ok for its purpose, gives you a centralized place where you can manage your xwiki content. We could have a link on the deleted page Notice ("The following versions are in the *recycle bin*") that targets the "Deleted Documents" tabs. We need to decide on which naming conversion we choose (Recycle Bin vs. Trash vs. Deleted Documents) and use a single naming. We can solve the crowdedness with some organization, like: - Index Tab: change Page, Space into Document, Location (Parent). This way we can move the Orphaned Pages Tab into the Index Tab and leave Parent column empty for Orphaned Pages (this way you can filter them) - Attachments could be encapsulated into a Documents Tab that has a Type column that states if the entity is a page or an attachment. - Recycle Bin Tab should contain pages and attachments in the same place. This way we should have: All Documents (Pages, Attachments, Orphaned Pages), Tree View, Recycle Bin (Pages, Attachments, Oprhaned Pages [this is not important] ) The separation into the previous categories (page, attachments, orphaned) would be done by using the LiveTable filters. It's a place where you could restore a page to become valid again. or in the same table, but with a Type column. In our OSs there are no multiples recycle bins. A recycle bin manage all the deleted content. I don't think this is an administration action, but an edit one. If I delete a document by mistake I should be able to restore it (from it's page or from the recycle bin). - Since right now IIRC one needs only the edit right to restore a deleted +1 If I have edit rights I should be able to restore any document. Observations for further improvements: We need to keep the consistency for the AllDocs: - Date format: 2010 January 4, 13:49 [Attachments, Deleted Documents] vs. 2010/01/04 13:55 [Index, Orphaned Pages] - Page, Space columns vs. Document, Title - Actions icons: with informative text [Index, Oprhaned Pages] or without [Deleted Documents, Attachments gives no action] - Descriptive last modification message: Author, Deleted by. Thanks, Caty

On 01/04/2010 01:42 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote: Which "edit" action? -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/

http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XE-581 I never had that add-on active and I can still see the edit. FoXWiki 1.0b is not compatible with Firefox 3.5.6 - so the list of user gets very small that can use an old add-on.

On 01/04/2010 01:33 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote: Yes, that was planned as well. Agreed, I will send a vote. This will prevent filtering by space or by name only. How can you filter by an empty value? The current livetable can't do that. It will need a checkbox or something to require empty values, since the semantics of the filters is "contains this text", and all values contain the empty string. Also, the orphaned pages table was placed in a separate tab precisely for making it stand out. Although having a single table with attachments and documents would be OK for the user, this is very hard to do since it requires complex and time-costly queries, which would make the page much less responsive, and in general the wiki slower. We could use vertical tabs, as in http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/XWiki/VerticalTabsExtension, since they allow a large number of tabs. Well, attachments and documents have different fields: filename + owner document vs. title + name + parent document; overlapping them will cause confusing terminology. At least in a tabular display. The initial interface for the trash was based on the Search Results one, which could allow mixing different entity types. Agreed. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/

Hi Sergiu, On Jan 10, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: It looks a bit complex to me. I had some hard time understanding how vertical and horizontal tabs are organized. For example the orphaned pages inside the vertical Tree tab is really strange. It also means 2 clicks to get to the feature. Maybe having only vertical tabs would work best (without any horizontal tabs). Also, I haven't followed the full discussion on this thread but I don't feel that 6 horizontal tabs is that bad. I think it fits, even on 1024 pixels screens. Thanks -Vincent

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 21:56, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote: The vertical menu looks weird to me because there is a mix between organisation layout and content. As Vincent said "ORPHANED PAGES" (which is not a tree) is lost somewhere in the "Tree" section and there is two vertical sections related to documents. I'm not against vertical menu but it should be made more logical. Could be something like: - vertical tab: content related (documents, attachments, ...) - horizontal tab: layout (for example for documents you would have index and tree) -- Thomas Mortagne