We were using a focus outline on links, but weren't doing the same for
buttons. Since sometimes browsers use a default outline which is barely
visible, this was very disorienting when browsing using the keyboard; we
were navigating through links that clearly indicated where the keyboard
focus was, and when reaching a button suddenly we had this almost
imperceptible feedback. Even if I'm used to it, my first reaction is
always "where did the focus go?" until I realize it's now on a button.
This is even more confusing because we've got buttons looking like links
and links looking like buttons.
Note that in the rules for the `:focus` styles we're including buttons
and the `[type="button"]` attribute. This seems redundant since those
styles are already covered by the `button` selector. However, Foundation
adds styles to buttons with the `[type]` attribute. Since the attribute
selector has precedence over the tag selector, we need to use the
attribute selector as well in order to override Foundation's styles.
The budget header was supposed to be huge, but only in the participatory
budgets index or show actions. It was still huge, with plenty of empty
space, when there was no budget, or in the "submit my ballot" and
"select a heading" pages.
We've deprecated the "icons" font since we started using Font Awesome
two years ago and using it caused some screen readers to announce an "l"
before the content of every list item.
The `icon-budget` hasn't been used in this context for a long time;
maybe since commit d0b8fef6b.
The `document-form` class was removed in commit 6c1d828a6.
Finally, the `topic-new` and `topic-form` were removed in commit
c887cb736.
So they follow the same convention used in proposals.
Note the styles are for elements which appear in the "new" view but not
in the "edit" view, so we only have to include them in one place.
We weren't using a global maximum width for the <body> element because
we wanted the background of some elements to cover the whole screen. If
the body didn't cover the whole screen, then we would have to find a way
to extend the background beyond the limits of the body.
Elements can take the whole screen width using a width of 100 viewport
width (vw) units, which weren't as widely supported when CONSUL
development started as they are today.
However, there's a gotcha will vw units; they don't take into account
the vertical scrollbars browsers add when scroll is needed. That means
that an element with a width of 100vw would cause a *horizontal*
scrollbar when the vertical scrollbar appears on the screen. So
approaches like this one wouldn't work:
```
body {
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
max-width: $global-width;
}
@mixin full-background-width {
&::before {
margin-left: calc(50% - 50vw);
margin-right: calc(50% - 50vw);
}
}
```
We could add `overflow-x: hidden` to the body to avoid the horizontal
scrollbar. However, on certain screens sizes that could cause some
content to disappear if there isn't enough horizontal space for all the
elements.
If we tried some other solution based on using `max-width` with `margin:
auto` on the <body> element, it would result in a body having a fixed
width and a variable margin (depending on whether there's a scrollbar).
So it wouldn't be possible to set a negative margin on child elements
based on the margin of the body, because that margin would be different
depending on the existence of a scrollbar.
So, instead, we're adding a fixed margin to the body, which depends on
the viewport width and the font size of the <html> element. With this
approach, when a vertical scrollbar appears, the margin of the <body> is
still the same; what changes is its width. That means we can set a
negative margin on child elements based on the margin of the <body>. No
horizontal scrollbar will appear.
Note we're slightly duplicating the code by using two variables
(`$body-margin` and `$full-width-margin`) to do the same thing. We could
simply use `$body-margin` and then use `calc(-1 * #{$body-margin})` in
our `full-width-background` mixin. We aren't doing so because some old
versions of the Android browser and Internet Explorer can't handle this
operation. Since our whole layout is based on these properties, in this
case supporting old browsers is quite important.
For similar reasons we're using a breakpoint instead of using the
`max()` function like: `Max(0px, calc(50vw - #{$global-width / 2}))`. At
the time of writing, `max()` is only supported in about 91% of the
browsers.
With this change, we no longer need to add `row` elements to make sure
we don't exceed the maximum width; the <body> element takes care of
that.
Also note banners sometimes have a full background and sometimes they
don't, depending on which page they appear. We're adding specific rules
for them.
Finally, the code for full width borders is a bit brittle; sometimes we
want the border to cover an element, and sometimes we don't. For
example, we had to slightly change the way the border of the "tabs" in
legislation processes is rendered. Without these changes, the borders
wouldn't overlap as we intended. We also had to add a `z-index` to
navigation links so their bottom outline is visible when they're
focused. The recommendations have a border with the same color as the
background so it's painted on top of the border of the `help-header`
section.
We're using `background: #fff` and `background: $white` in many places.
Sometimes we mean "use the same background as the body", which means if
we change the body background so it's, let's say, dark, we'll also have
to change all these places.
So now we're using `$body-background` in more places, so changing the
general background color is easier.
There are still some places where we use `#fff` or `$white`. Sometimes
it's hard to tell whether the intention is "use a white background here"
or "use the same background as the body here". When in doubt, I've left
it the way it was.
Just for testing purposes, I've tested locally how things would look
like if we added this code to `_consul_custom_overrides.scss`:
```
$body-background: #fea;
$card-background: $body-background;
$tab-background: $body-background;
$tab-content-background: $body-background;
$table-background: $body-background;
```
Or:
```
$body-background: #333;
$text: #fcfcfc;
$body-font-color: $text;
$card-background: $body-background;
$tab-background: $body-background;
$tab-content-background: $body-background;
$table-background: $body-background;
```
Testing shows we've still got a long way to go to make it easy to add
custom color themes, since there are many custom colors in the code.
Hopefully these changes bring us one step closer.
Using `currentcolor` is IMHO more expressive, since it shows the
intention of styling the border with the same color as the text.
This is particularly useful for CONSUL installations using custom
styles. Consider the following code:
```
.is-active {
border: 1px solid $brand;
color: $brand;
}
```
If we'd like to customize the way active items look, we'd have to
override two colors:
```
.is-active {
border: 1px solid $brand-secondary;
color: $brand-secondary;
}
```
Consider the scenario where we use `currentcolor` (which is the default
border color):
```
.is-active {
border: 1px solid;
color: $brand;
}
```
Now we only need to override one color to change the styles:
```
.is-active {
color: $brand-secondary;
}
```
Using `inherit` is IMHO more expressive since it means "use the color of
the parent element".
This is particularly useful for CONSUL installations using custom
styles. Consider the following code:
```
h2 {
color: $white;
a {
color: $white;
}
}
```
If we'd like to customize the way headings look, we'd have to override
two colors:
```
h2 {
color: $red;
a {
color: $red;
}
}
```
Consider the scenario where we use `inherit`:
```
h2 {
color: $white;
a {
color: inherit;
}
}
```
Now we only need to override one color to change the styles:
```
h2 {
color: $red;
}
```
Using the same color as text made it impossible to visually recognize
the link. Users might click the link accidentally while trying to select
the text of that link.
Furthermore, sighted keyboard users would be surprised when tabbing
through the interface and realizing some apparently normal text is
really a link.
These styles aren't necessary since commit aabf8493f. Now the "Go back"
link in the budgets section can use the same color as in the other
sections, while the other texts inherit the usual colors.
We use order links in many places in the web. However, in the comments
section and the list of community topics, we were displaying a
`<select>` element, and changing the location when users select an
option.
This has several disadvantages.
First, and most important, it's terrible for keyboard users. `<select>`
fields allow using the arrow keys to navigate through their options, and
typing a letter will select the first option starting with that letter.
This will trigger the "change" event and so users will navigate through
a new page while they were probably just checking the available options
[1]. For these reasons, WCAG Success Criterion 3.2.2 [2] states:
> Changing the setting of any user interface component does not
> automatically cause a change of context unless the user has been
> advised of the behavior before using the component.
Second, the form didn't have a submit button. This might confuse screen
reader users, who might not know how that form is supposed to be
submitted.
Finally, dropdowns have usability issues of their own [3], particularly
on mobile phones [4]
The easiest solution is to use the same links we generally use to allow
users select an order, so using them here we make the user experience
more consistent. They offer one disadvantage, though; on small screens
and certain languages, these links might take too much space and not
look that great. This issue affects pretty much every place where we use
order or filter links, so we might revisit it in the future.
Note we're moving the links to order comments after the form to add a
new comment. In my opinion, having an element such as a form to add a
new comment between the element to select the desired order of the
comments and the comments themselves is a bit confusing.
[1] https://webaim.org/techniques/forms/controls#javascript
[2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/on-input.html
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUkMCQR4TpY
[4] https://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?1950
Using links combined with JavaScript to generate POST requests to the
browser has a few issues.
An obvious one is that it doesn't work for users without JavaScript
enabled (which lately I've noticed are more common than I thought, even
though I've been one of them for years). These users will reach a 404
page.
Since CONSUL isn't currently designed to work without JavaScript
enabled, let's ignore this one for now.
A not so obvious issue is screen reader users might expect the link to
take them somewhere instead of performing an action (in this case,
sending a form to the server).
There might be more issues I'm unaware of. Quoting DHH [1]:
"Turning ahrefs into POSTs is a bit of an anti-pattern, especially for
a11y reasons. Better to use button_to with a styling."
So we're using a button instead. This way we can also simplify the code
and make the button disabled for unidentified users, which automatically
makes it impossible to focus it using the keyboard.
A possible disadvantage of using `button_to` is it will create a form
tag which will be announced to screen readers as a form landmark. I've
tested it with my screen reader and everything worked fine for me, but
some screen reader users might interact with these forms in a different
way and find it confusing, particularly in the case where the button is
disabled.
With this change, we're only changing links for buttons in one place.
There are other places where we should do similar changes.
[1] See issue 33 in https://github.com/hotwired/turbo-rails/
- Allow to define a link (text and url) on budget form for render on the budget
header.
- Improve styles
Co-authored-by: Senén Rodero Rodríguez <senenrodero@gmail.com>
Using `<a>` tags with no `href` means these elements cannot be activated
by keyboard users, so we're replacing them with buttons.
In the future we probably want to add more consistency so all toggle
buttons use the same code. We might also add styles depending on the
`aria-expanded` property.
There were some issues using `.budget.expanded`, like a link having that
class which would force us to a `:not(.button)` selector or similar,
making the CSS more complex.
We were using a custom icon because in the past social-share-button
didn't have support for whatsapp. But now that it does, we can remove
our custom icon.
Note we're using the `_app` suffix because that's the name of the icon
meant for mobile devices.
This rule was added so the tag list wouldn't have an extra bottom
margin. However, the rule is already applied by the `.tags` selector
inside `.budget-investment` and it was conflicting with other lists
(goals and tags) we've added to thi investments index.
This way we won't have to add the `inline-block` and `no-bullet` classes
to other elements and we can define the styles in one place.
Note we're using the `ul.tags` selector instead of just `.tags` to avoid
conflicts with a `div.tags` selector which is used to select tags in a
form. Renaming the selector to `.tag-list` would be better, but we
aren't doing so because it would break custom stylesheets using that
selector.
Also note we're keeping the %tags placeholder selector in `.tags`
selector in the participation.scss file. This is so styles are not
overwritten by selectors like `.debate-show ul li`, which has the same
specifity as `ul.tags li`.
