Using <h3> headings for the links had two disadvantages.
First, it was the wrong heading level to use, since there was no <h2>
tag before it.
Second, headings are supposed to be followed by content associated to
that heading; here, we had no content following the headings.
So we're using a list of links and giving it a heading. We're adding
styles so the page still looks like it used to, although these styles
are certainly asking for improvements.
The JavaScript required to display the chart wasn't loaded on the admin
stats page.
We're not adding a test because we're going to move the budgets graph to
a different page on the pull request containing this commit.
Note we're changing the "Go back" link, since using a turbolinks refresh
broke this link when using the Chromium browser. Besides, there was an
inconsistency where some of the "Go back" links in admin stats pointed
to the admin stats page but other links pointed to `:back`.
We were using Foundation's accordion menu to open/close nested lists of
links. Unfortunately, Foundation's accordion makes it impossible to
access links in nested links using the keyboard [1] (note the issue is
closed, but in the latest version of Foundation, 6.8.1, it's still
present, and Foundation's development is mostly discontinued).
Furtheremore, it adds the `menuitem` role to links, but ARIA menus are
not ment for navigation but for application behavior and, since it
doesn't add the `menubar` or `menu` roles to the parent elements, it
results in accessibility issues for people using screen readers (also
reported by the Axe accessibility testing engine).
So we need to implement our own solution. We're using the most commonly
used pattern: a buttton with the `aria-expanded` attribute. And, for
people using browsers where JavaScript hasn't loaded, we're keeping the
submenus open at all times (just like we were doing until now), and
we're disabling the buttons (since they do nothing without JavaScript).
This might not be an ideal solution, but it's probably good enough, and
way better than what we had until now.
We've also considered using the <details> and <summary> elements instead
of using buttons to open/close items on the list. However, these
elements still present some accessibility issues [2], and the transition
between open and closed can't be animated unless we overwrite the
`click` event with JavaScript. The pattern of using these elements to
open/close a nested list of links isn't common either, and some people
using screen readers might get confused when entering/leaving the nested
list.
We tried other approaches to get the animation effect, all of them based
on adding `[aria-expanded="false"]:not([disabled]) + * { display: none;
}` to the CSS file.
Unfortunately, animation using CSS isn't feasible right now because
browsers can't animate a change form `height: 0` to `height: auto`.
There are some hacks like animating the `max-height` or the `flex-grow`
property, but the resulting animation is inconsistent. A perfect
animation can be done using the `grid-template-rows` property [3], but
it requires adding a grid container and only works in Firefox and recent
versions of Chrome and similar browsers.
Getting to a solution with JavaScript was also tricky. With the
following approach, `slideToggle()` opened the menu the first time, even
if it was already open (not sure why):
```
toggle_buttons.on("click", function() {
$(this).attr("aria-expanded", !JSON.parse($(this).attr("aria-expanded")));
$(this).next().slideToggle();
});
```
This made the arrow turn after the menu had slided instead of doing it
at the same time:
```
toggle_buttons.on("click", function() {
var button = $(this);
button.next().slideToggle(function() {
button.attr("aria-expanded",
!JSON.parse(button.attr("aria-expanded")));
});
}
```
With this, everything disappeared quickly:
```
toggle_buttons.on("click", function() {
var expanded = JSON.parse($(this).attr("aria-expanded"));
if (expanded) {
$(this).next().slideUp();
} else {
$(this).next().slideDown();
}
$(this).attr("aria-expanded", !expanded);
}
```
So, in the end, we're hiding the nested link lists with JavaScript
instead of CSS.
[1] Issue 12046 in https://github.com/foundation/foundation-sites
[2] https://www.scottohara.me/blog/2022/09/12/details-summary.html
[3] https://css-tricks.com/css-grid-can-do-auto-height-transitions
Note that we used to have the link to delete images inside the same
<form> tag as the button to update the image. However, using a button
means we're adding a new <form> tag for the action to delete the image.
This isn't valid HTML and, in some browsers, might result in the button
sending the request to the wrong URL.
As explained in commit 5311daadf, to avoid this, we'd need to replace
`button_to` with `button_tag` in the action in order to generate a
button without a form. Then, we could add either a `form` or a
`formaction` attribute to the button.
However, I thik it's easier to move the delete button outside the update
button <form> tag. On the minus side, since the buttons no longer share
a parent, they're harder to style. So we're using a mix of nested flex
layouts with one of the nested elements using a container unit as width.
Since we're at it, we're also improving the styles on small and medium
screens by making sure the "Update" button wraps before the "Delete"
button does (using a container query), by giving enough width to the
column containing this actions on small screens as well (removing
`small-12` and giving it two-thirds of the width on all screen sizes)
and by having a gap between elements.
Note that, at the time of writing, container queries are only supported
by about 91%-93% of the browsers, meaning that some administrators will
see all from controls displayed vertically, one on top of the other, on
all screen sizes. We think this is acceptable, and the page remains
fully functional in this case.
We were already using buttons to destroy pages from the pages index.
As mentioned in commits 5311daadf and bb958daf0, using links combined
with JavaScript to generate POST (or, in this case, DELETE) requests to
the server has a few issues.
This way we can simplify setting the title and styling the link in the
header. We're also fixing the unnecessary padding introduced by the
`column` classes, which caused the header not to be aligned with the
rest of the elements surrounding it. We're still keeping it the margin
used in the `row` classes so it's aligned with the rest of the form;
ideally, we would remove the `row` classes in the rest of the form and
in the whole admin section, but this isn't something we can tackle right
now.
Note that, in the CSS, the `margin-left: auto` property needs to be
included after `@include regular-button` because that mixin overwrites
the `margin-left` property. Since we're modifying this code, we're
making it compatible with RTL text, using `$global-left` instead of
`left`.
In Rails 6.1 and earlier, `button_to` generated a <button> tag when it
received the content as a block, but an <input> tag when receiving
the content as the first parameter.
That's why we were using blocks with `button_to` most of the time; for
starters, <button> tags accept pseudocontent and so are easier to style.
In Rails 7.0, `button_to` always generates a <button> tag [1], so we're
simplifying the code what uses `button_to`, passing the content as a
first parameter instead of passing it as a block.
[1] https://guides.rubyonrails.org/v7.1/configuring.html#config-action-view-button-to-generates-button-tag
We were using generic names like `args` and `options` which don't really
add anything to `*` or `**` because Ruby required us to.
That's no longer the case in Ruby 3.2, so we can simplify the code a
bit.
Many pages had this tag, but many other didn't, which made navigation
inconsistent for people using screen readers.
Note that there are slight changes in two pages:
* The homepage now includes the banner and the content of the
`shared/header` element inside the <main> tag
* The budgets index now includes the banner inside the <main> tag
I see both potential advantages and disadvantages of this approach,
since banners aren't necessarily related to the main content of a page
but on the other hand they aren't the same across pages and people using
screen readers might accidentally skip them if they jump to the <main>
tag.
So I'm choosing the option that is easier to implement.
Note we're adding a `public-content` class to the <main> element in the
application layout. This might be redundat because the element could
already be accessed through the `.public main` selector, but this is
consistent with the `admin-content` class used in the admin section, and
without it the <main> element would sometimes have an empty class
attribute and we'd have to use `if content_for?(:main_class)` or
`tag.main` which IMHO makes the code less consistent.
The Capybara::DSL monkey-patch is only done on the `visit` method
because it's the only reliable one. Other methods like `click_link`
generate AJAX requests, so `expect(page).to have_css "main", count: 1`
might be executed before the AJAX request is finished, meaning it
wouldn't properly test anything.
The `use_helpers` method was added in ViewComponent 3.8.0, and it's
included by default in all components since version 3.11.0.
Note we sometimes delegated the `can?` method to the controller instead
of the helpers, for no particularly reason. We're unifying that code as
well.
Before this change, two important things depend on the format of each key,
where to render it in the administration panel and which kind of interface
to use for each setting. Following this strategy led us to a very complex
code, very difficult to maintain or modify. So, we do not want to depend
on the setting key structure anymore to decide how or where to render each
setting.
With this commit, we get rid of the key format-based rules. Now we render
each setting explicitly passing to it the type and the tab where it belongs.
Instead of using a setting nested param `setting[:tab]`. We only need
the tab param when rendering settings in the administration section.
This change will make it easier rendering the correct tab after
updating settings.
In the admin section, when clicking on a link that leads to a page in
the public area, sometimes the page was opened in the same window and
sometimes it would open in a new window, with no clear criteria
regarding when either scenario would take place.
This was really confusing, so now we're more consistent and open
(almost) every link in the same window. The main reason behind it is
simple: if we add `target: _blank`, people who want to open those links
in the same window can no longer do so, so we're taking control away
from them. However, if we don't add this attribute, people can choose
whether to open the link on the same tab or to open it on a new one,
since all browsers implement a method to do so.
More reasons behind this decision can be found in "Opening Links in New
Browser Windows and Tabs" [1].
We're keeping some exceptions, though:
* Opening the link to edit an investment on the same tab would result in
losing all the investment filters already applied when searching for
investments, so until we implement a way to keep these filters, we're
also opening the link to edit an investment in a new tab
* For now, we're also opening links to download files in a new window;
we'll deal with this case in the future
[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/new-browser-windows-and-tabs/
In some places, we were using `blank` instead of `_blank`. Most browsers
treat `blank` like `_blank`, though, so most people didn't experience
any difference.
In another place, we were incorrectly passing the `target` option inside
an `options:` hash, resulting in invalid HTML.
Quoting usability experts Jakob Nielsen and Anna Kaley [1]:
> [Opening PDF files in new tabs] is problematic, because it assumes
> users will always do the exact same things with certain file formats,
> which isn’t always the case.
There are many examples of this situation. For example, some people
(myself included) configure their browser so it downloads PDF files
instead of opening them in the browser. In this situation, a new tab is
opened, a blank page is displayed, the file is downloaded, and then
either the tab is closed or the blank page needs to be manually closed.
The end result is really annoying.
Other situations include people who use a mobile phone browser, where
navigating through tabs is generally much harder than doing so on a
desktop browser.
But IMHO the most important point is: every browser already provides a
way to open "regular" links in a new tab, so people can choose what to
do, but if we decide to open the link in a new tab, we take control away
from them, and people who'd like to open the link in the same tab might
feel frustrated.
In these cases, the links either say "download" or include the word
"PDF", so people know in advance that they're going to download/open a
PDF file, and so we're giving them information and, by removing the
`target` attribute, we're giving them control over their browser so they
can choose what's convenient for them.
[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/new-browser-windows-and-tabs
We were adding <div> tags with the `images` or `documents` HTML class
prettly much every time we rendered a NestedComponent. We're now
including the HTML class inside the component, as we usually do.
We're also rendering the nested components directly, since it's been a
while since the partials were changed to simply render the components.
There's a link next to it that does the exact same thing and includes
the word "download", which was confusing in some cases since people
might think that links with different texts lead to different pages.
This way we make it easier to modify.
Note that, since the title of the page is "Administration" and it's in
the "Admin" section, we're adding an option to the `header` method in
order to avoid having a confusing title like "Administration - Admin".
Also note that, by removing the `title` HTML class, we avoid inheriting
styles from the `dashboard.scss` stylesheet, and now the heading is
displayed in the position it was meant to.
Finally, the concept of using a `main-class` for the current page comes
from a branch (currently in development) which will replace the <div>
tag with the `admin-content` class with a `main` tag.
Previously the condition was needed because _without it_ the Admin::Poll::Questions::Answers::ImagesController would have resulted in settings? evaluating to true. This was undesired because that controller was scoped under Polls, so only polls? should have evaluated to true. Now that we have moved the images link to the customization menu, this check is not necessary anymore.
