Take the 2-minute tour ×
User Experience Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for user experience researchers and experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This question already has an answer here:

Some of the application have Double Confirmation for DELETE action. Also, some of the application behavior is "Type DELETE" and continue to delete.

Is this correct way?

My opinion is, we can have this option when there is no "Undo" feature. Otherwise we can have one time alert.

Please share your thoughts here.

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by greenforest, Matt Obee, Charles Wesley, JohnGB, 3nafish Jul 20 '13 at 3:37

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

    
Also very similar to Verification of consequences ux.stackexchange.com/questions/39355/… –  Michael Zuschlag Jul 19 '13 at 13:47

4 Answers 4

It depends on how critical the delete operation. A simple "Warning! this action cannot be undone" will work - if your end-user is human. Certain applications have an automation feature or prone to get hacked by a program - in these cases a warning would not help, you will need something to halt the process.

Mission critical applications (and even some Video Games) provide this feature "Type Delete to delete this item" while new trends ask you to "Type the name of the item to permanently delete it". Sometimes even a password/key/authentication code is used.

mockup

download bmml source – Wireframes created with Balsamiq Mockups

Again, the option of having either or both depends on the nature of your application, end-users, and your capabilities to restore deleted items without much impact on the eco-system or cost to the business / application itself.

Example: If you are tying to delete the application making the prompt (which cannot be undone) - use more than just a button to confirm. If you are just deleting a row of data from a table, use a simple alert box.

/more

mockup

download bmml source

share|improve this answer
2  
I like this approach, however, I would probably change the button "Ok" to "Delete" to reinforce something is being deleted. –  Keiwes Jul 19 '13 at 16:26
    
Yes, that button should have been "Delete". Added one more mock-up :P –  Rayraegah Jul 19 '13 at 16:39

I suspect games like that are counter-productive. It focuses the users on what they have to do to get rid of the annoying message and distracts them from the task and the implications of their actions. They get too busy typing "Delete" or whatever that they aren't thinking, "Wait a minute, what exactly am I deleting? Is now the time I should be deleting it? Which is the obsolete document to delete, "Long Memo" or "Big Memo"? 'Delete' means 'archive,' right?"

If you have a clear easy undo, you don't need any confirmation. If Undo is impossible, then use a confirmation if the action has a good chance of being seriously harmful, but don't expect the message to help much no matter how you make it.

The best you can do is indicate exactly what the user is about to do, and what the implications are, as succinctly as possible. Put the command ("Delete") in the button, not "OK," so at least users will notice that much. Keep the message small and to the side of the object selected for the action so the user sees the context what the action applies to in order to verify it's the right object. Consider an illustration that shows at a glance what the user is about to do (e.g., a thumbnail of the specific document in question about to be fed to the shredder).

share|improve this answer

I noticed that the double delete verification comes into play whenever the user is deleting something of higher importance only. Otherwise, I could easily see it becoming more of nuisance than anything.

You need to prioritize what would be a hassle or detrimental for a user to lose based on a mistake behavior.

In a game for example, it's not a big deal if you delete a common item by accident, but this isn't the case for something that is rare.

share|improve this answer

It's all context related I believe.

If a user is on some site and they created a new article named "Article1" and they never typed in anything other than the name then deleting it should be EASY. No need to confirm anything.

If the user created Article2 and type in some text and added some tags....then this would need confirmation because it risks losing important user data.

If your application has an "activity log" that the user can look at and use to "undo" actions then deletion confirmation might not be necessary. If they wanted to undo the delete they could undo it themselves.

Github does the "type the name of the project to delete" because a user better be darn sure about deletion and what they want to delete. It might've taken days to code the project or files, etc.

I think you should decide based on the sensitivity of the data ( like in the Article examples above ) as well as the undo/redo functionality you add to your application.

In some cases you might even DISALLOW deletion altogether because other items in the system reference the item you want to delete. In that case you would point out the dependencies to the user so they can decide if they want to go and delete those.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.