Opened 11 years ago
Last modified 7 years ago
#26861 reviewing enhancement
Too easy to delete a site in Multisite
Reported by: | bradparbs | Owned by: | flixos90 |
---|---|---|---|
Milestone: | Awaiting Review | Priority: | normal |
Severity: | minor | Version: | |
Component: | Networks and Sites | Keywords: | has-patch |
Focuses: | ui, multisite | Cc: |
Description
Currently, deleting a site in Multisite is very easy. There is no warning what deleting a site actually means, and nothing to show a user they are about to perform a destructive action. Just the ability to confirm, not even cancel!
I'm not sure what the prompt should actually say, or if there is a better way to do a prompt, or if the button should just be red, but there's for sure something we can change here to make a better experience.
Attachments (3)
Change History (21)
#1
@
11 years ago
I was thinking that perhaps an email to the site owner confirming, similar to how signup email confirmations work, should be sent. This would act as a two-factor authentication.
At the very least a message indicating exactly what will be deleted: i.e. posts, pages, comments etc and that it is permanent and will be irrecoverable.
#2
@
11 years ago
At the very least a message indicating exactly what will be deleted: i.e. posts, pages, comments etc and that it is permanent and will be irrecoverable.
I think this is the best way to go.
Patch incoming in a few mins. :)
#4
in reply to:
↑ 3
@
11 years ago
Replying to bradparbs:
Nice. Maybe add a heading? h1 or h2 to make it look more significant?
#5
follow-up:
↓ 11
@
11 years ago
Your suggested language is grammatically incorrect, and a bit wordy. I would suggest something much simpler: "You are about to permanently delete the site %s. This action cannot be undone." If you're dying for emphasis, bold the second sentence.
#6
follow-up:
↓ 7
@
11 years ago
Along the lines of the old AYS changes (and ask for forgiveness, not permission), maybe we should rethink the process: instead of deleting a site, why not trash it, with the ability to restore later? It's obviously a much larger change, but these sorts of issues are symptomatic of the underlying problem.
#7
in reply to:
↑ 6
@
11 years ago
Replying to rmccue:
instead of deleting a site, why not trash it, with the ability to restore later? It's obviously a much larger change, but these sorts of issues are symptomatic of the underlying problem.
I had this exact thought before remembering that it's possible to archive a site already. This may highlight how there could be room for a more explicit workflow.
#8
follow-up:
↓ 10
@
11 years ago
Well... yes, I can't recall if there's another ticket on this already, but the number of different ways to deactivate a site that are exposed by default is confusing and not really self-explanatory.
#9
@
11 years ago
Whatever is done, the message for Archive and Deactivate are similarly sparse. Perhaps, for each option, a larger explanation of consequences as well as links to the other options would be advisable.
#11
in reply to:
↑ 5
@
11 years ago
Replying to helen:
Your suggested language is grammatically incorrect, and a bit wordy. I would suggest something much simpler: "You are about to permanently delete the site %s. This action cannot be undone." If you're dying for emphasis, bold the second sentence.
In my defense, this was after a long weekend of #wcphx. I'm surprised I had enough energy to even go on trac. :)
I think your wording is clear enough.
#14
follow-up:
↓ 15
@
11 years ago
- Keywords good-first-bug removed
- Owner set to bradparbs
- Status changed from new to assigned
So, looks like the string is:
'You are about to delete the site %s. This is a permanent and irrevocable. All pages, posts, comments, and other data will be deleted forever. There\'s no going back, please make sure this is something you want to do.
Two quibbles:
- This string is long at more than 200 characters. If in a foreign language and URL encoded, it could come *really* close to the GET limit here. Can we make it so this stops getting passed via the URL? We can still use 'msg' if it is passed, but otherwise, we should be able to check that
'deleteblog' == $_GET['action2']
and then just print our message in sites.php. Not the original intent of this ticket, but I think it's necessary (and not difficult to do).
- The sentence has a comma splice. I'd make "There's no going back." its own sentence. And, since we're going to move this out of the query string, we might even be able to use these amazing things called paragraph tags. I'd put one right before "There's no going back."
Brad, still interested in working on this?
#15
in reply to:
↑ 14
@
11 years ago
Replying to nacin:
So, looks like the string is:
'You are about to delete the site %s. This is a permanent and irrevocable. All pages, posts, comments, and other data will be deleted forever. There\'s no going back, please make sure this is something you want to do.
Two quibbles:
- This string is long at more than 200 characters. If in a foreign language and URL encoded, it could come *really* close to the GET limit here. Can we make it so this stops getting passed via the URL? We can still use 'msg' if it is passed, but otherwise, we should be able to check that
'deleteblog' == $_GET['action2']
and then just print our message in sites.php. Not the original intent of this ticket, but I think it's necessary (and not difficult to do).
- The sentence has a comma splice. I'd make "There's no going back." its own sentence. And, since we're going to move this out of the query string, we might even be able to use these amazing things called paragraph tags. I'd put one right before "There's no going back."
Brad, still interested in working on this?
Great points - I'll throw together a patch for it later today. Thanks!
#16
@
10 years ago
How about a prompt to archive the site as an alternative to deletion within the warning?
Deletion sample