Last modified: 2014-06-01 17:42:28 UTC
If you have the "rollback" user right, you get a "rollback" link in various parts of the user interface. This is currently a confirmation-less link that will revert all of the edits a user has made to an article (cf. [[WP:ROLLBACK]]). It's _really easy_ to accidentally click this link. It happens fairly frequently, particularly for users on touchscreen devices (an iPad, for example). I couldn't find a bug already tracking this issue, so I'm filing this one. It may make sense to require two clicks for rollback links (this was similarly proposed at bug 47658). The current assumption that power-users (i.e., users with the "rollback" user right) aren't clumsy and won't accidentally click this link is clearly faulty. :-)
Well, making rollback a two-click process defeats its purpose and renders it redundant to undo. The problem, really is in the design of the watchlist. Since each entry is just a string of data of varying lengths, the rollback button can be anywhere on the horizontal axis, including right on top of article or other links, leading to the misclick. Personally, I think a good solution would be to change the watchlist into a spreadsheet style and put the article, last editor, edit description and undo/rollback buttons in their own cells. Keep rollback right justified and away from the other links.
(In reply to comment #1) > Well, making rollback a two-click process defeats its purpose and renders it > redundant to undo. The problem, really is in the design of the watchlist. > Since each entry is just a string of data of varying lengths, the rollback > button can be anywhere on the horizontal axis, including right on top of > article or other links, leading to the misclick. Well, it depends on the two-click implementation. Imagine a system where you click [rollback] and the link magically and instantly turns into [are you sure? click again to confirm] (i.e., no page reload). This workflow would be marginally more burdensome (requiring two clicks rather than one), but it wouldn't be as bad as undo. > Personally, I think a good solution would be to change the watchlist into a > spreadsheet style and put the article, last editor, edit description and > undo/rollback buttons in their own cells. Keep rollback right justified and > away from the other links. Have you tried the "enhanced" watchlist (available via [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc]] --> "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist (requires JavaScript)")? It may be a starting point for a redesign.
You can use user or site css to hide the link on the watchlist for you or all users of the wiki. Try: .mw-special-Watchlist .mw-rollback-link { display: none; } Please make the two clicks a option, because not all user will like. You can also write a easy javascript to reach this and make it as gadget.
Also the 2-click proposal may interfere with the ability to open the rollback link on a new tab with ctrl+click, or make it tedious when one needs to rollback a lot of edits (like more than 10 or so). Another solution may be to "hide" them by default, and put a button to make them appear when clicked so they only appear when needed. This could be done as a gadget.
(In reply to comment #4) > Also the 2-click proposal may interfere with the ability to open the rollback > link on a new tab with ctrl+click, or make it tedious when one needs to > rollback a lot of edits (like more than 10 or so). It won't if done right. It could still work as now for middle-clicking or for users using browser extensions to open multiple links at once. I'm starting to like this idea; the ([rollback]) link expanding to (are you sure? [yes] [no]) should be pretty non-disruptive for power users while still preventing most of the accidental clicks. (And would be reasonably easy to implement – I think those links have a class one could hook to with JavaScript.)
(In reply to comment #4) > Also the 2-click proposal may interfere with the ability to open the rollback > link on a new tab with ctrl+click, or make it tedious when one needs to > rollback a lot of edits (like more than 10 or so). > > Another solution may be to "hide" them by default, and put a button to make > them appear when clicked so they only appear when needed. This could be done > as a gadget. (In reply to comment #5) > I'm starting to like this idea; the ([rollback]) link expanding to (are you > sure? [yes] [no]) should be pretty non-disruptive for power users while still > preventing most of the accidental clicks. (And would be reasonably easy to > implement – I think those links have a class one could hook to with > JavaScript.) Someone could probably expand my solution on Bug 46412 and my new [[User:Technical 13/Scripts/NoThanks.js]] to make it so that [Rollback] (or any of the others) is grayed out until clicked on and then the second click would perform the action... I would be happy to work on that. I've been thinking of improving and modifying that code anyways and I could add multiple settings to allow for hiding/removal of rollback, block, thank, and undo links based on user settings...
