Note that in order to simplify the component tests (which for some
reason seem to be whitespace-sensitive), we have to omit whitespace
characters inside the `<option>` tags.
Also note we're simplifying the test with a missing language name; since
a component test doesn't involve a whole request, we don't need a
complex setup (I'm not sure we even need it in system tests).
We were defining campaigns with `let`. That meant they weren't created
until these methods were used in the tests.
For the test "Do not track erroneous track_ids", that meant the line
`expect(page).not_to have_content campaign2.name.to_s` wasn't really
testing anything, since before this line is executed, the campaign2
wasn't in the database at all, and so obviously its name wouldn't be on
the stats page.
For the test "Track email templates", it meant we were creating the
campaign2 record after visiting the campaign1 page with the browser.
Creating records in the tests after starting the browser might be the
reason why this test has recenty failed in our CI [1]:
1) Email campaigns Track email templates
Failure/Error: ds.add params[:event].titleize, Ahoy::Event.where(
name: params[:event]).group_by_day(:time).count
ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid:
PG::ProtocolViolation: ERROR: bind message supplies 0
parameters, but prepared statement "" requires 1
# ./app/controllers/admin/api/stats_controller.rb:13:in `show'
Using `let!` to create the campaings before the browser starts improves
the situation.
[1] https://github.com/consul/consul/runs/2952333023
The word "budget" in the "Preview budget" link is redundant.
On the other hand, the words "Manage", Edit" and "Admin" are not
really necessary in my humble opinion. Just like in the admin
navigation menu we use "Participatory budgets" instead of "Manage
Participatory budgets", the fact that we're going to manage or
admin or edit something can be deduced from the fact that we're in
the admin section.
Besides, it isn't clear to me why we use "Manage" for projects,
"Edit" for heading groups and "Admin" for ballots. The differences
between these three concepts might be too subtle for me.
The previous paragraphs haven't been corroborated with real users,
though, so I might be mistaken and we might need to revisit these
links in the future.
These actions still take quite a lot of space. Maybe in the future we
could remove the "delete" icon, at least on budgets which cannot be
deleted.
When we see a list of, let's say, banners, and each one has a link to
edit them, the word "banner" in the text "edit banner" is redundant and
adds noise; even for users with cognitive disabilities, it's obvious
that the "edit" link refers to the banner.
As mentioned in commit 5214d89c8, there are several issues with
submitting a form when a `<select>` tag changes. In particular, keyboard
users might accidentally fire the event while browsing the options, and
screen reader users will find a form with no obvious way to submit it.
In this case, there's an extra problem: in commit be8a0dbe8 we added a
second `<select>` field to this form, which also submitted on change.
Sometimes users changed one of the values and wanted to change the other
value as well before submitting the form. However, it wasn't possible,
because we would submit it before they had a chance to change the second
value.
So now we don't submit the form on change and add a submit button. This
is similar to what we do in the "Advanced filters" we use in several
places.
Since forms are landmarks, screen reader users might navigate to the
form. But then they were going to find an empty form with no way to
toggle it.
Moving the button inside the form means screen reader users navigating
to the form will find the button to toggle it.
It also helps us simplifying the code; there's no need to use
data-attributes to communicate whether the form should be visible since
now we can easily use the button `aria-expanded` attribute.
We could further simplify the JavaScript if we used a CSS rule to
show/hide the form fields based on the toggle button `aria-expanded`
attribute. However, implementing the "slide" animation we use when
toggling the form with CSS is difficult and unreliable.
Users (particularly, screen reader users) usually identify links with
things that take you somewhere, and buttons with things that either send
forms or change things on the page.
Using a button we can also use the `aria-expanded` attribute, meaning
screen reader users will know that the button has two states ("expanded"
and "collapsed"), the current state of the button, and will get
immediate feedback when clicking the button because the new state of the
button will be announced.
Thanks to this change, we can also slightly simplify the code; we
obviously have to remove the (useless) `href` attribute, and we don't
have to prevent the default event in JavaScript since there's no default
event for buttons with `type="button"`.
Currently it is not necessary to include the link_url field.
When we display these cards without link_url, they create an empty link that
redirects to the same page. I understand that this is not a desired behavior, so I
think it is better to add a validation in this case and force administrators to add a
link_url when creating a card.
As mentioned in the previous commits, a `<select>` field which submits
its form on change causes many accessibility and usability issues, so
we're replacing it with the order links we use everywhere else.
Since the links "Id" and "Title" by themselves don't have enough
information to let users know they're used to sort by ID or title, we
have to update them somehow. We could add a "Sort by:" prefix before the
list of links (and associate it with the `aria-labelledby` attribute);
however, we don't do this anywhere else and might look weird depending
on the screen size.
So we're simply adding "Sort by" before each link.
Now that we don't use the `wide_order_selector` partial anymore, we can
remove it alongside the styles for the `select-order` class.
A `<select>` tag here might make more sense than in other similar places
since there are 5 options to choose among, and using links might take
too much screen space.
However, as mentioned in the previous commits, `<select>` tags which
automatically submit a form have many accessibility and usability
issues.
An alternative would be to create a dropdown menu with a button and a
list of links (similar to what Foundation does). I'm keeping the links
for simplicity and because the interface looks a bit more consistent
with the rest of the sections. Before these changes, we had a heading,
then a `<select>` field to choose the filter, and then a button to print
the page. We never use a similar interface, and some people might think
the "Print" button is related to the same form as the `<select>` field.
Now that we don't use the `order_selector` partial anywhere anymore, we
can remove it.
Using order links in this case causes an unusual interface, where we
show filter links, then information about the number of results, and
then order links.
Whether or not this makes sense needs to be confirmed with usability
tests. In any case, this is still way better than using `<select>`
fields which automatically change to a new page, since they cause
problems to keyboard users, are harder to select for touchscreen users,
might confuse screen reader users who will notice a form but no way to
submit it, and are not elements we generally use to let users choose the
order of the records.
For a more detailed explanation of these issues, check the commit
message in the commit "Use order links to sort comments and topics"
(just a few commits ago).
It was a bit frustrating to click on one of the order elements or the
link to the next page and having to scroll down again until reaching the
comments.
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 placeholders having similar (or identical) text as already present
as a label has a few issues.
First, it's a distraction. Reading the same information twice is
useless, requires an extra effort, and might even frustrate users.
Second, if users start typing before reading the placeholder and see it
disappear, they might think they're missing relevant information,
delete what they typed, and read the placeholder. That will get them
nowhere.
Finally, we display placeholders using a text offering very low contrast
against the background, so users don't think the placeholder is an
actual value entered in the field. Using such low contrast makes the
text hard to read, particularly for users with visual impairments.
So we're removing these placeholders.
This commit only deals with placeholder texts with similar (or
identical) texts as the label text. There might be other places where we
should replace placeholder texts with labels, but that's a different
topic.
This test will fail if the ID of the created record is the same as the
ID of the first user we create in the test. The chance is very low due
to the `rand(9999999)` which causes the test to fail just once every ten
million times. However, why assigning the ID in the first place? Without
it, the test will never fail due to conflicting IDs.
When administrators disabled features and users tried to access them
with the browser, we were responding with a 500 "Internal Server Error"
page, which in my humble opinion was incorrect. There was no error at
all; the server worked exactly as expected.
I think a 403 "Forbidden" code is better; since that feature is
disabled, we're refusing to let users access it.
We could also respond with a 404 "Not found", although I wonder whether
that'll be confusing when administrators temporarily or accidentally
disable a feature.
A similar thing might happen if we responded with a 410 "Gone" code.
Actually this case might be more confusing since users aren't that
familiar with this code.
In any case, all these options are better than the 500 error.
Note we don't cast negative votes when users remove their support. That
way we provide compatibility for institutions who have implemented real
negative votes (in case there are / will be any), and we also keep the
database meaningful: it's not that users downvoted something; they
simply removed their upvote.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
Co-Authored-By: Julian Nicolas Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
It was hard to notice what was going on when supporting one investment
which was at the bottom of the investment index page.
I wonder whether we should add the title of the investment to this text;
I'm not doing so because we don't do that anywhere else.
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/
We meant to check that the link to support a different investment didn't
have an alert dialog. However, we were testing by trying to support the
same investment twice, and here there was no link at all, so the
assertion "there's no link with a dialog" always passed even when the
application didn't behave properly.
Now we check there's a link there, and that link doesn't have an
associated alert dialog.
In regular system tests, we prefer testing against the text of the link
because it's easier to recognize which link we're talking about.
I was wondering whether we should remove the `title` attribute
completely and use just the `aria-label` attribute. Quoting The Paciello
Group blog [1]:
"If you want to hide content from mobile and tablet users as well as
assistive tech users and keyboard only users, use the title attribute."
However, there's a case where mouse users might find the title attribute
useful. When visiting an investment page, the connection between the
"Support" link and the investment is not as clear as it is in the
investments index page, so it might not be clear what you're supporting.
As mentioned, though, this information will only be relevant for mouse
users, who nowadays represent less than half of our users.
[1] https://www.tpgi.com/using-the-html-title-attribute-updated/
The `js-` prefix (which I admit I'm not fond of) is usually used to
indicate the class is used by JavaScript files, not for using it in test
files. And in all the other similar tests, we're using the `in-favor`
class instead of the `js-in-favor` class.
This reverts commit 83fe74d53.
When supporting an investment in the management section through the
investment view, we were accessing an action in the public investments
controller. This meant the manager was the one supporting the investment
(as they'd be the `current_user` in this controller) and not the managed
user.
In the case of groups with many headings, voting the first time requires
a confirmation and then a regular (non-AJAX) request takes place. In
this case, users were redirected to the public area instead of remaining
in the management area.
Using the proper URL to vote solves the problem.
Note there was a comment about one of these tests failing in Travis.
Most probably the test failed because there was no expectation after
clicking the link with the investment title, so the "Support" button
(which is also present in the index page) was clicked before the
investment view was loaded.
The test was failing sometimes because the conditions we were checking
were the same before and after clicking the "Pending" link. So there was
a race condition between the request generated by clicking the "Pending"
link and the order to click the "Confirm moderation" link. This
sometimes resulted in the "Confirm moderation" link not being correctly
clicked.
The key was declared twice and so the first one ("Support this project")
was overwritten.
We're grouping all keys related to the investment list together in order
to reduce the chances of this issue happening again (or, at least, in
this part of the code).
Note one of the tests dealing with random results is a bit flaky; since
it's a permutation selecting 7 objects out of 12, it will fail about
once every 4 million times. We think this is acceptable.
Co-Authored-By: Julian Nicolas Herrero <microweb10@gmail.com>
In the form of creating a new investment was hiding the name of the
group if it had only one heading, but could be confusing to users if
there are, for example, five different groups of one heading.
The solution:
- If the budget has one group and one heading, the heading selector is
hidden.
- If the budget has one group and more than one heading, the group name
is hidden.
- If the budget has more than one group, the group name appears
regardless of the number of headings.
Note we're using an extra `<span>` element but we could use a CSS grid
layout instead. We're not using it because browser compatibility is only
94.56% at the time of writing.
