A recent post by Cory Webb on Twitter,
twitter.com/#!/corywebb/status/167293349458489344, got me thinking seriously about the trash process.
Cory is spot on of course, to delete a trashed item it should not be necessary to select it again. 'Empty trash' should do just that. Of course, we still need the select options to restore items but to have to use them to delete an already deleted item is non-sensical.
However, once I started thinking about the trash process I realised it is actually a lot worse than that, and we have an opportunity to seriously improve the UX of the trash process.
Here's the scenario: I've been exploring various layout options while developing a site and I'm now cleaning things up before I send it over to my client. So, I don't want unpublished items or anyhting in the trash. I have a menu item pointing to a category blog that I no longer need. Currently my workflow would be:
1) Menu manager > select item > trash > filter: trashed items > select item > empty trash
2) Article manager > select item > trash > filter: trashed items > select item > empty trash
3) Category tab > select item > trash > filter: trashed items > select item > empty trash
Anyone else seeing the redundancy here? Aside from the select issue Cory highlighted, why have we got two trashcans? I believe most people would find the concept of a unified trashcan (as with any desktop OS) more sensible; who would want an 'image trash' a 'music trash' a 'folder trash'??
If we have a unified trashcan, and drop the extra select step the same cleanup process would have a workflow of;
1) Menu manager > select item > trash
2) Article manager > select item > trash
3) Category tab > select item > trash
4) Global trashcan > empty trash
This method would speed workflows and improve the logic behind the process, which I beleive would improve the UX of the trash process significantly.