Note: Since we update to 1.80.1 deprecation warnings are appear when execute the assets:precompile command.
In order to silence this deprecation, we add silence_deprecation option in sass.rb initializer.
The code has also been updated to remove the deprecation warnings that appeared related to the function
darken(), lighten() and "Using / for division" instead of the function calc().
Bumps [sassc-embedded](https://github.com/sass-contrib/sassc-embedded-shim-ruby) from 1.70.1 to 1.80.1.
- [Commits](https://github.com/sass-contrib/sassc-embedded-shim-ruby/compare/v1.70.1...v1.80.1)
---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: sassc-embedded
dependency-type: direct:production
update-type: version-update:semver-minor
...
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
We hadn't added this rule before because there was no such rule in
scss-lint. Instead, we were following it without a linter, and so we
unintentionally broke it sometimes.
But now we're using Stylelint, so we can add the rule and let the linter
check we're still following it.
The initialjs-rails gem hasn't been maintained for years, and it
currently requires `railties < 7.0`, meaning we can't upgrade to Rails 7
while we depend on it.
Since the code in the gem is simple, and we were already rewriting its
most complex part (generating a background color), we can implement the
same code, only we're using Ruby instead of JavaScript. This way, the
avatars will be shown on browsers without JavaScript as well. Since
we're adding a component test that checks SVG images are displayed even
without JavaScript, we no longer need the test that checked images were
displayed after AJAX requests.
Now the tests show the user experience better; people don't care about
the internal name used to select the initial (which is what we were
checking); they care about the initial actually displayed.
Note initialjs generated an <img> tag using a `src="data:image/svg+xml;`
attribute. We're generating an <svg> tag instead, because it's easier.
For this reason, we need to change the code slightly, giving the <svg>
tag the `img` role and using `aria-label` so its contents won't be read
aloud by screen readers. We could give it a `presentation` role instead
and forget about `aria-label`, but then screen readers would read the
text anyway (or, at least, some of them would).
The division operator `/` from Sass is deprecated because `/` is used in
CSS for uses other than dividing numbers. That's why we were getting
many warnings like:
```
Deprecation Warning: Using / for division outside of calc() is
deprecated and will be removed in Dart Sass 2.0.0.
Recommendation: math.div($line-height, 2) or calc($line-height / 2)
More info and automated migrator: https://sass-lang.com/d/slash-div
margin-top: $line-height / 2;
```
Since using math.div makes the code harder to read and `calc` is
universally supported by all browsers (although the implementation in
Internet Explorer doesn't work in certain cases), we're using `calc`
when assigning the value to a CSS property.
However, we're also using divisions when assigning Sass variables, and
in those cases using `calc` is trickier because sometimes these
variables are used in other operations. We'll handle these cases in the
next commit.
We were displaying documents in five places, and in five different ways.
Sometimes with the metadata in parenthesis after the title, sometimes
with the metadata below the title, sometimes without metadata, sometimes
with an icon in front of the document, and sometimes with a separate
link to download the file.
So we're now displaying the same thing everywhere. Not sure whether this
is the best solution, but at least it's consistent.
We aren't unifying the way we display a list of documents, though, since
different sections look pretty different and I'm not sure whether the
same style would look well everywhere.
Note that we're renaming the `document` HTML class in the documents
table to `document-row` so the styles for the `document` class don't
apply here.
This way it'll be easier to change them.
Note that there were two `.document-link` elements which aren't part of
a `.documents` element. We're renaming the HTML class of the link in
investments because it didn't contain links to download documents and
are slightly duplicating the CSS in the poll answer documents in order
to keep the `word-wrap` property.
Since we were styling pressed buttons the same way as buttons on hover,
a person hovering on the button and then clicking it wouldn't notice
that the buttons had been pressed unless they noticed that the number
and percentages of votes had changes. They wouldn't notice the changes
when unpressing the buttons either, since, after clicking the button,
the cursor would still be over it, and so the hover styles would apply.
Furthermore, it was hard for mouse users to realize that a button could
be unpressed, since the style of pressed buttons didn't change on hover.
So we're now changing the icons on hover without changing the
background. This way all four states (unpressed, unpressed on hover,
pressed, pressed on hover) are styled in a different way.
The colors we were using (gray for unpressed buttons and green or red
for pressed buttons) didn't contrast well against a white background, so
we're now using darker colors.
However, with darker colors, using solid icons for the unpressed buttons
makes it harder to differentiate when a button is pressed and when it
isn't, particularly for color-blind people.
So we're now using regular icons for the unpressed buttons and solid
icons for the pressed ones.
We were using the same selectors three times. Since we're going to
change that part of the code, we're simplifying it so we don't have to
do the same changes three times.
We were displaying the alt text using the same color as the background
color, which made it impossible to read it when the logo didn't load
(for whatever reason).
Using the same color as the text, like done in the admin section, solves
the issue.
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.1 added a success
criterion called Non-text Contrast [1], which mentions that the focus
indicator must contrast with the background, and version 2.2 introduced
a specific one regarding focus appearance [2]. According to that
criterion, the focus indicator:
* is at least as large as the area of a 2 CSS pixel thick perimeter of
the unfocused component or sub-component
* has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 between the same pixels in the
focused and unfocused states.
Our current solution for highlighting elements on focus has a couple of
issues:
* It doesn't offer enough contrast against the default white background
(1.6:1)
* It offers even less contrast against other backgrounds, like the
homepage banner or the featured proposals/debates
Making the color of the outline darker would increase the contrast
against these backgrounds, but it would reduce the contrast against
other backgrounds like our default brand color.
For this reason, most modern browsers use a special double outline with
two different colors [3], and we're choosing to combine an outline and a
box shadow to emulate it, using the brand color as the second color.
However, this double-colored outline doesn't work so well when focusing
on dark buttons surrounded by a light background, so instead we're using
a triple outline, which works well on any color combination [4]. Since I
feel that making the third outline 2px wide makes the overall outline
too wide, I'm making the inner outline just 1px wide since that's enough
to prevent edge cases.
Note that Foundation adds a transition for the `box-shadow` property on
`select` controls, which gets in the way of the focus we use on the
language selector. So we're removing the transition.
Also note that the box-shadow style didn't work properly with the
box-shadow we added on the `:hover` status on cards, so we're changing
the code in order to cover this case.
Finally, note that the box-shadow isn't displayed properly on multiline
links (in Chrome, not even with `box-decoration-break: clone`), like the
ones in debates/proposals/polls/investments/processes titles, so we're
changing the style of these links to `inline-block`.
[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#non-text-contrast
[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#focus-appearance
[3] https://www.sarasoueidan.com/blog/focus-indicators/#examining-(current)-browser-focus-indicators-against-wcag-requirements
[4] https://www.erikkroes.nl/blog/the-universal-focus-state/
This way it's going to be easier to style the link on focus, since
styles like `box-shadow` weren't working properly when we had an inline
link with block elements inside, and adding the `display: inline-block`
element to the link didn't play well with the layout we were using for
the recommendations.
We're also fixing the focus outline on recommendations, which didn't
look properly because of the border added with:
```
.recommended-index {
// (...)
@include full-width-border(top, 1px solid #fafafa);
}
```
The border was on top of the outline, breaking it. Increasing the
`z-index` of the element containing the outline solves the issue.
In a similar way, we're making sure the button to hide recommendations
stays visible so it's easier to click it.
Internet Explorer 8 was released in 2009 and people using it already
know that most web pages look broken on it, so we don't need to warn
them.
Removing it makes our application layout file much easier to read and
modify.
The top bar padding was different on small screens when we were in the
admin section, so we're now applying the same padding everywhere.
Note we're still applying extra padding on medium/large screens because
in the public section we display our logo image, which has some blank
space. In the admin section we're emulating this blank space with
padding; we might change it in the future if we change our logo.
Also note we're using `0.8rem` instead of `$line-height / 2`. The reason
is tricky: there's a spec testing the reorder feature with drag and drop
in the poll questions answers administration, and that test fails when
the drop space is right at the bottom of the screen, which is what
happens when we use the `$line-height / 2` padding. A proper solution
would be to remove the inaccessible drag and drop feature and use a
different method to reorder the answers.
So now it uses the same interface and styles as the main layout. On
small screens, it's easier to play with the menu when the button is on
the left because the menu it opens is aligned to the left.
Note that now we can get rid of the title-bar class; we didn't use the
styles in the public area since commit dcec003d0, and we were overriding
all the Foundation styles in the admin area with the exception of the
padding, which we no longer need.
We're changing the order of the elements in the HTML so the menu button
appears next to the menu it opens, with no logo between them, which IMHO
makes sense and makes it easier to understand the layout for people
using screen readers.
A small advantage of this approach is that on very narrow screens or
Consul applications having a very long word for "Menu", the menu button
appeared on top, the logo appeared below it, and the contents of the
menu appeared below the logo. Now the logo appears on top, the menu
button appears below it, and the contents of the menu appear below the
menu button.
The menu didn't look properly on these screens since commit dcec003d0.
On small screens with enough horizontal space to show the menu button,
the logo, and the contents of the menu, all three elements were shown on
the same row, which looked broken.
Now the contents of the menu are shown below the menu button.
Note that, to force this, we're making the contents of the menu 100%
wide. That means links would take the 100% of the space, which would
make it easy to click on a link while trying to scroll when using
touchscreens. So we're making the links as wide as their text, which
also has a disadvantage: it's harder to click on narrow links like
"SDG".
We're going to change these styles in order to fix a bug, and the
Foundation styles were getting in the way. Besides, we were overwriting
some rules and so now we're removing 6 properties while we're also
adding 6, so it isn't like the Foundation styles were helping us.
This class was only there in order to use Foundation's styles, but
the amount of styles we were using was equal to the amount of
styles we were overwriting.
This way we follow the convention of one stylesheet per component.
Note that we depend on Foundation's `menu` class for some of the
styles and JavaScript behavior, so we're keeping both the `menu` and
`account-menu` classes.
We were using similar code in four different places; six, if we count
the welcome pages seeds. Reducing duplication in the pages seeds is a
bit tricky because administrators are supposed to edit their content and
might remove the HTML class we use to define styles. However, we can
share the code everywhere else.
Note that there's a bug in the application since we show that level 2
users cannot vote for budget projects but we give them permission to do
so in the abilities model. We're keeping the same behavior after this
refactoring but we might change it in the future.
We were already doing the same for the main header color; now we also
make it easier to use different top links, subnavigation and footer
colors per tenant.
Just like we do with SCSS variables, we use the brand-secondary color
for the top links when the `--top-links` variable isn't defined.
Just like we did with SCSS variables, we use the `--main-header` CSS
variable and, if it isn't defined, we use the `--brand` CSS variable
instead.
Note that we're still using the `inverted-selection` mixin based on the
default `$main-header` color, so it's possible that we get the inverted
selection in the main header when using a dark color with `$main-header`
but a light color with `--main-header`, which doesn't make much sense.
Not sure whether there's anything we can do about it.
Until now, overwriting the styles for a certain tenant was a very
tedious task. For example, if we wanted to use a different brand color
for a tenant, we had to manually overwrite the styles for every element
using that color.
It isn't possible to use different SCSS variables per tenant unless we
generate a different stylesheet per tenant. However, doing so would make
the CSS compilation take way too long on installations with more than a
couple of tenants, and it wouldn't allow to get the colors dynamically
from the database, which we intend to support in the future.
So we're using CSS variables instead. These variables are supported by
97% of the browsers (as of October 2022), and for the other 3% of the
browsers we're using the default colors (SCSS variables) instead.
CSS variables have some limitations: for instance, it isn't possible to
use functions like `lighten`, `darken` or `scale-color` with CSS
variables, so the application might behave in a strange way when we use
these functions.
It also isn't possible to automatically get whether black or white text
makes a better contrast with a certain background color. To overcome
this limitation, we're providing variables ending with `-contrast`. For
instance, since the default `$brand` color is a dark one, when assigning
a light color to `--brand`, we probably want to assign
`--brand-contrast: #{$black}` as well, so the text is still readable.
Until now, we didn't have specific variables for the headers and were
using the brand colors instead. Now we maintain the brand colors as
default values, but allow overwriting them.
For the navigation and footer, we didn't even have variables.
Back in commit 5dbd69486, I said:
> I'm choosing to use the same color for solid and hollow buttons
> because these elements are usually isolated and so from the UX
> perspective they are similar; links, on the other hand, are often in
> the middle of some text.
However, I made a mistake. The crucial factor is that solid buttons
might have a light background if we choose the brand color to be a light
one, and in this case they automatically get black text. However, hollow
buttons always have a light background and so we can't use a light color
for the text and border of these buttons.
We were using each one half the time, while they both had the same value
by default. It was impossible to know when me meant "use a dark color
here" or "use the secondary brand color" here.
So now we're only using one variable, so it's easy it'll be easy to add
CSS custom properties to overwrite this variable. We're choosing
`brand-secondary` because its name makes it less problematic to use a
light color.
This is consistent with the usage of `$body-background`. This way
Foundation elements using `$body-font-color`, like the `<body>` tag,
will be changed when changing this variable, which wouldn't happen when
using `$text`.
The variables `$anchor-color` and `$anchor-color-hover` are the ones
Foundation uses internally; by using them, we make sure every link will
use the colors we define.
Now we can simplify the default styles for the `<a>` tags, since by
default they already use these variables.
This way we simplify the code a bit.
Note we're only using this function when variables for background colors
are already defined, since that means customizing the variable using the
background color will automatically change the color of the text.
Customization isn't easier when using raw colors.
We were defining (for instance) white text against the `$brand`
background. That meant that, if somebody customized the `$brand` color
so it used a light color, they had to customize the text color as well
in order to guarantee proper contrast between text and background
colors.
So we're using `color-pick-contrast` instead, which means we don't have
to manually calculate whether white or black will be the color which
makes the text more readable.
