Skip to Content

Changes for page Improved edit mode

Last modified by Ecaterina Moraru on 2018/09/26 16:02
From version 6.5
edited by Marta Girdea
on 2010/01/22 17:19
Change comment: Added comment
To version 12.1
edited by Anca Luca
on 2010/01/23 21:44
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.Marta
1 +xwiki:XWiki.lucaa
Content
... ... @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
1 1  = Improved edit mode =
2 2  
3 -[[image:EditingWikiforDummy.png]]
3 +[[image:propE1.png]]
4 4  
5 5  
6 6  [[image:objed.png]]
AdvEditMode.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.evalica
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +242.8 KB
Content
AdvEditMode.svg
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.evalica
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +455.6 KB
Content
propD1.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.evalica
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +73.9 KB
Content
propE1.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.evalica
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +71.8 KB
Content
XWiki.XWikiComments[3]
Date
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2010-01-22 15:52:34.642
1 +2010-01-22 15:52:34.0
XWiki.XWikiComments[4]
Date
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2010-01-22 15:55:33.416
1 +2010-01-22 15:55:33.0
XWiki.XWikiComments[5]
Date
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2010-01-22 16:09:35.402
1 +2010-01-22 16:09:35.0
XWiki.XWikiComments[6]
Comment
... ... @@ -3,5 +3,5 @@
3 3  Three minor comments:
4 4  
5 5  * I'd make the title field larger than the parent field, because you usually need to write more in the title field. Of course, then they might look a bit unbalanced, so if this turns out to be an issue they can be left with equal sizes.
6 -* Re "All languages will be in the menu, but will be shown active just the versions that exists for this page" -- indeed there must be a difference between the appearance of entries for existing translations and non-existing translation, but I wouldn't say non-existing translation should look/be inactive, because the user should be able to create a new translation, and be aware of this possibility.
6 +* Re "All languages will be in the menu, but will be shown active just the versions that exists for this page" - indeed there must be a difference between the appearance of entries for existing translations and non-existing translation, but I wouldn't say non-existing translation should look/be inactive, because the user should be able to create a new translation, and be aware of this possibility.
7 7  * I'm not sure about listing the included documents before the text area, but I can't come up with a much better place either. One option is to list them under the text area, because they are not that important. However, this position would really decrease their visibility.
Date
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2010-01-22 16:19:14.509
1 +2010-01-22 16:19:14.0
XWiki.XWikiComments[7]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.evalica
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,2 @@
1 +After some complains about Included Documents and Comment describing text:
2 +[[image:propD1.png||width="900px"]]
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2010-01-22 16:22:03.0
XWiki.XWikiComments[8]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.Marta
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +How about the complaints about the parent field size? :)
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2010-01-22 16:23:52.0
Reply To
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +7
XWiki.XWikiComments[9]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.evalica
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@
1 +This prop changes the way last three options are displayed. I prefer propC.
2 +
3 +Included documents have their specific place. Are we sure we want to remove all the panels? Included documents and localization could be better explained in a panel.
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2010-01-22 16:23:59.0
Reply To
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +7
XWiki.XWikiComments[10]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.evalica
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +:)
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2010-01-22 16:24:11.0
Reply To
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +8
XWiki.XWikiComments[11]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.evalica
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +[[image:propE1.png||width="900px"]]
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2010-01-22 16:43:16.0
XWiki.XWikiComments[12]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.evalica
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +I've put the included documents before the text for cases like Blog.BlogCode, when you have pages that contain just included doc and you don't need to scroll to be able to access them.
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2010-01-22 16:45:54.0
Reply To
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
XWiki.XWikiComments[13]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.Marta
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +For included documents: the brackets should either be around "Includes" as well, or should disappear completely. Otherwise, this looks great.
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2010-01-22 16:50:07.0
Reply To
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +11
XWiki.XWikiComments[14]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.evalica
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +done - thanks for all the feedback
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2010-01-22 16:52:40.0
Reply To
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +13
XWiki.XWikiComments[15]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.Marta
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Just a thought: would the "autosave" part go better on the same line with the form buttons? IMO, semantically, it is more related to the buttons than to the change comment.
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2010-01-22 16:54:51.0
Reply To
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +11
XWiki.XWikiComments[16]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.evalica
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +I didn't test autosave, but every 5 minutes the page saves with the comment described and as minor change if selected?
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2010-01-22 17:11:56.0
Reply To
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +15
XWiki.XWikiComments[17]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.evalica
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@
1 +so autosave acts like a minor change with the current comment - the position is ok if we thing autosave apply those fields.
2 +
3 +Being on the line with buttons would describe the save action better. Would fit so well though.
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2010-01-22 17:24:25.0
Reply To
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +16
XWiki.XWikiComments[18]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.Marta
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +I just realized the tags are missing from all the proposals. Was that on purpose? If not, would it be OK to put them under the content?
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2010-01-22 21:03:11.0
XWiki.XWikiComments[19]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.evalica
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@
1 +If we put them under the content we really need the separator helping text "Comma separated tags" and this separator shouldn't change to "|" when editing back the page.
2 +
3 +Are we sure we want tags in the edit mode? We already have a interface for them in the view.
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2010-01-23 01:02:16.0
Reply To
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +18
XWiki.XWikiComments[20]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.lucaa
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,8 @@
1 +The source tab shouldn't be there, transforms the Wysiwyg editor in a wiki editor and makes things sort of inconsistent. For example,
2 +* we cannot remove this help on wiki syntax, although it's completely irrelevant for users seeing the wysiwyg editor (I think pretty few of them move to Source)
3 +* we cannot remove the syntax selector all together, which doesn't make sense at all in a wysiwyg editor (actually, the syntax selector would be useful for the source tab which disappears anyway when you change syntax, it's doesn't make too much sense),
4 +* it doesn't look good together with the Content label (having Content, Wysiwyg, Source), all there looks bad.
5 +* and, last but definitely not least, we already have the wiki editor to edit wiki, that's just duplicated functionality, we should set for only one of them and my vote goes for wiki editor
6 +* oh, and also it's not displayed when editing wysiwyg an inline form (blog for example).
7 +
8 +WDYT?
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2010-01-23 20:42:34.0
Reply To
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5