Development Discussion Board

See, that's where I disagree. What you call acknowledgement pages, all for it. It's not too difficult to implement a system where a script can do something, set a message, and then immediately redirect to the page where e.g. it was called from, where the message is displayed in some kind of message ...

I don't. I think it is a wonderful idea to remove confirmation messages. I don't think that saying, "well, it was soft deleted, so if you made a mistake, you can go there an do such and such to get it back" cuts it as a "replacement", though. It needs to be as simple to get your ...

You can't just delete something as soon as a user clicks a button and be done with it. GravityDK's post started out by stating "Putting aside the 'undo' complexities" (which, IMHO is a much better way of handling things than any kind of confirmation up front). That leaves a confirmation qu...

I think a modal popup (lightbox-style) would be better to ask for confirmation. Something that appears below a button may not be apparent enough. Do you have any sources that also suggest this?

Considering that the idea is very much geared to getting rid of a technical distinction between standard (core) functionality and third-party functionality, I think a neutral term is required. Actually, such a neutral term is already in use; for the various control panels, phpBB speaks of "modu...

Usually, wherever you redirect, the other option(s) will be one click away, just like when you present a list of choices. Nothing gained, but nothing lost either. Actually, there are default redirects right now; if you don't make a choice within a few seconds, the redirect is automatic.

Absolutely. However, the need for this should in theory be alleviated to a great extent by more frequent feature releases, complete with a minor version number bump. To me, user expectations play an important role too. Just look at 3.0.6. To the casual observer (who may see an announcement on some t...

Actually, wouldn't any release, except for the initial 3.x.0, be bug fixes only? With the new versioning/development scheme in place, I would expect "feature creep" in any given 3.x branch be reduced to an absolute minimum, as new features would be introduced only with a new 3.x+1 release....

WRT storing codes in the database, I would like to draw your attention to a different approach altogether. Some would consider it bad practice to touch user input at all . Store it in de database as is. That way, you will never have to do any "reverse-parsing" to allow editing the input. O...

so i ask myself, and everyone here, What actions would need to be reversed other than deletions? A very generic answer: anything you would traditionally feel the need to ask "Are you sure?" about. To me, this is about the fact that people increasingly become blind to confirmation question...