Using the `flex-with-gap` mixin we avoid the left margin in the second
element when the screen space isn't wide enough to show both buttons.
Setting the margins with CSS also allows as to simplify the view and
makes it easier to customize styles.
Having buttons (previously links) with the text "I agree 75%" is
confusing; people might believe they're saying they only partially agree
with the content. Besides, the results percentages is a different piece
of information which shouldn't be related to whether one person
agrees/disagrees with the content.
This problem might be solved for people using screen readers since we
added the aria-label attribute. However, for sighted keyboard users, the
percentage was being outlined on focus as part of the button, which
might be confusing.
Note we're using the `budgets.investments.investment.add_label` and
`budgets.ballots.show.remove_label` internationalization keys so they're
consistent with the `budgets.investments.investment.add` and
`budgets.ballots.show.remove` keys which were already present. We aren't
unifying these keys in order to keep existing translations.
This way blind screen reader users will know which proposal they're
supporting. In a list of proposals, context might not be clear when a
link saying "Support" or "Support this proposal" is announced, but a
link saying "Support Create a monthly transport ticket" is less
ambiguous.
Just like we did with investments in commit de436e33a, we're keeping the
title attribute because when visiting a proposal page, the connection
between the "Support" link and the proposal is not as clear as it is in
the proposals index page, so it might not be clear what you're
supporting.
We were using the same code to render links to agree and disagree, so we
can extract a new component for this code.
We're also adding component tests to make it easier to test whether
we're breaking anything while refactoring, although the code is probably
already covered by system tests.
Since the votes mixin was only used in one place, we're removing it and
moving most of its code to a new CSS file for the shared component.
Very similar code is present in the `votes.js` file. Since the only
elements with the `js-participation-not-allowed` class also matched the
`div.supports div.participation-not-allowed` selector, for these
elements the events were executed twice.
So we can get rid of the `js-participation` class alongside all the
JavaScript code referencing it.
When there isn't a current user, the links can't be clicked, so there's
no real point in them being links.
When there's a current user and they cannot vote (for example, an
organization), having a link/button to an action they can't perform
isn't that useful IMHO. They get a message saying they aren't allowed to
vote but the message doesn't say why. However, in this case, many people
might try to click/touch the link/button and will wonder why nothing
happens, so we'll revisit this issue when we change the way we display
the "participation not allowed" messages.
Now the behavior is more similar to the one we get when voting
proposals/debates.
This way we can make the view code a bit easier to read.
We're also changing the order of the conditions a little bit so we only
check for the presence of a current user once.
To make sure we aren't breaking anything with these changes, we're
adding some tests. We're also replacing one system test checking content
with a component test, since component tests are much faster.
The action and the views were almost identical, with the supports
progress and the HTML classes of the success message element being the
only exceptions; we can use CSS for the styles instead.
Just like we did in commit 0214184b2d for investments, we're removing
some possible optimizations (we don't have any benchmarks proving they
affect performance at all) in order to simplify the code.
The investement votes component `delegate` code was accidentally left
but isn't used since commit 0214184b2, so we're removing it now that
we're removing the `voted_for?` helper method.
The user can access this page without being logged in.
We identify the user through the "subscriptions_token" parameter and
show a list of the notifications that can be enable/disable.
We will return a 404 error in case someone accesses the page with a
non-existent token.
We also control the case that some anonymous user tries to access the
page without any token, by returning the CanCan::AccessDenied exception.
It was a bit confusing to press the "hide" button and then see the user
listed as "blocked". Some moderators might think they accidentally
pressed the wrong button.
In the moderation section there's no clear indicator as to what the
"Hide" and "Block" buttons do and the difference between them.
Since we're using confirmation dialogs in all moderation actions except
these ones, we're adding them here as well, so the difference will
appear in the dialog.
This isn't a very good solution, though, since the confirmation dialog
comes after clicking the button and users have already been wondering
whether clicking that button will be the right choice. A better solution
would be making the purpose clear before the button is clicked, although
that's something we don't do anywhere in the admin/moderation sections.
This is useful for people using screen readers, since the character used
as a separator won't be read aloud.
Since many screen readers also read content generated via CSS
pseudoelements, we aren't using `content: "|";` or similar but using
elements with a very small width instead.
We're continuing to replace links with buttons, for the reasons
explained in commit 5311daadf.
Since we're using the admin action component, we can also simplify the
logic handling the confirmation message.
In order to avoid duplicate IDs when generating buttons to block the
same author more than once in a page, we're including the record dom_id
in the ID of the button to block an author.
The `hide` action was calling the `block` method while the `soft_block`
action was calling the `hide` method.
Combined with the fact that we also have a `block` permission which is
used in `ModerateActions` the logic was hard to follow.
Note that in proposal notifications we're writing the call to
render the component in the same line as the <div class="reply">
definition in order to be able to use the `:empty` selector when the
component renders nothing. No browser matches whitespace with the
`:empty` selector, so we can't add newline characters inside the tag. A
more elegant solution would be extracting the proposal notification
actions to a component and only rendering it if the moderation actions
component is rendered.
We're starting to use buttons instead of submit inputs where possible
because buttons are easier to style; for instance, buttons allow
pseudoelements. Rails has also changed the `button_to` helper to always
generate a <button> tag in recent versions [1].
In this case, buttons get on better with flex layouts, since by default
some browsers display submit inputs with `white-space: pre`, meaning
some of the text isn't visible on small screens.
[1] See pull request 40747 in https://github.com/rails/rails
Placeholders are hard to read due to their low contrast, and users might
want to read them after they're already gone, and so they cause both
accessibility and usability issues.
There's no real point in linking to a page offering users to choose a
heading when there's only one heading to choose.
So we're linking to the investments index instead.
As mentioned in commit bc0f04075, a <select> field which submits its
form on change causes many accessibility and usability issues. In this
case there was also an incompatibility with the advanced search filter
which caused a bug solved in commit 541a5fa89.
So the question is where to position the filters and how to display
them. One factor to take into the account is how relevant these filters
are, particularly compared to the links to select the prefered order,
since we don't usually give users the choice of both filters and orders.
Our filters don't really make sense until the valuation phase starts,
since before that phase investments aren't selected nor their
feasibility is decided.
After that phase, the only phase where citizens are really involved
is the final voting; the rest of the phases are done by valuators and
administrators. In the final voting, citizens can only vote on selected
projects, and that's the default filter during that phase.
So these filters are mainly there for information purposes, and not to
help citizens in the phases where they're actually involved (accepting
projects, selecting projects and balloting).
Orders, on the other hand, play a crucial role during the final voting
phase. Since citizens might have already voted for a few projects and
have, let's say, 100,000€ left, ordering by price allows them to find
which projects are within their remaining budget.
In conclusion, orders are more important than filters, and so they
should have a more prominent place.
For consistency with the proposals section, where we've got some links
in the sidebar (bottom part of the page on small screens) providing a
similar funcionality, like accessing selected proposals or archived or
retired proposals, we're moving the investments filters to the sidebar
(bottom part of the page on small screens) as well.
The "enabled" column was aligned to the center, which looked weird when
seen on small screens because the `table-for-mobile` class (which I
think was added by accident) shows `th` and `td` elements using
`display: block`. Besides, using `display: block` on these elements
means browsers don't identify them as table headings/cells anymore,
causing accessibility issues.
There was an edge case where we could access the headings index without
sending the mode parameter in the URL. That meant when sending the
headings form we could send a form with the mode hidden field set to an
empty string. When that happened, the returned text was
`t("admin.budgets.help.#{i18n_namespace}.`, which returned a hash.
Using `multiple` when an empty strin is received solves the issue.
Since the message might appear several times on the same page, it's
useful to give a bit more context. Besides, usability tests show that
when there's a group with no headings, there's no clear indication on
the page that the group is actually a group and not a heading.
We're also adding some emphasis to the group name in the "Showing
headings" message, to be consistent with the emphasis we've
added the the group name in the "No headings" message.
Captions benefit blind screen reader users who navigate through tables,
particularly in this case because we potentially have several tables
with headings (one table per group), so when navigating through tables
it might be hard to know which group the headings belong to.
In this case they also benefit sighted users. Usability tests have shown
the "Groups and headings" section is a bit confusing, so adding a
caption like "Headings in Districts" helps clarifying Districts is a
group and the table refers to headings in that group.
The very same table is rendered in the "headings" step of the budget
creation wizard. However, in that case the information of the caption is
redundant because the page is specific for headings belonging to a
certain group. We're making the element invisible but still keeping it
for screen reader users in order to ease their navigation through
tables.
The population field is optional and only used for statistic purposes,
and the content block feature is also secondary, so IMHO it's OK if we
don't display it in the index; if administrators need this information,
they can see it by going to the "edit heading" page.
With this change it's easier to navigate the table on small and medium
screens. Actually, the whole page is easier to navigate, since we
greatly reduce the cases where a horizontal scrollbar is present.
The buttons to create polls associated with a budget were too prominent,
appearing on the table as if they were as used as the link to manage
investments. Most CONSUL installations don't use physical booths, and
would probably wonder what that button is about.
We're moving it to a more discrete place, at the bottom of the budget
page. This way we can also split the action in two: on budgets not
having a poll, we display the button in a not-so-accessible position (at
the bottom of the page), since this button will only be used once per
budget at most. Once the poll has been created, it means this feature is
going to be used, so we display a link to manage ballots more
prominently at the top of the page. If the budget has finished the final
voting stage without creating a poll, we don't show either the link or
the button because this feature can no longer be used.
We're also adding some texts indicating what this feature is about,
since it's probably one of the least understood features in CONSUL
(probably because the interface is very confusing... but that's a
different story).
Since now from the budget page we can access every feature related to
the budget, we can remove the "preview" action from the budgets index
table, since this feature isn't that useful for budgets once they're
published.
Now the budgets table doesn't take as much space as it used to, although
it's still too wide to be handled properly on devices with a small
screen.
Since managing investments is a very common action, with this link
administrators won't have to go back to the index page to manage
investments; they can access it from either the budgets index page or
the budget page.
Since now the links we've got on the budget page are similar to the ones
we've got in the index page table, we're styling them in a similar way.
We're also fixing a small typo en the investments path; it works exactly
the same way as it used to, but passing `budget` instead of `budget_id:
budget.id` is shorter and more consistent with what we do in other
places.
Both the calculate winners and delete actions benefit from some kind of
hint.
The "calculate winners" hint informs administrators that results won't
be publicly available unless the "show results" option is enabled.
The delete action was redirecting with an error message when the budget
couldn't be deleted; IMHO it's better to disable it and inform
administrators why it's disabled. Alternatively we could remove the
button completely; however, users might be looking for a way to delete a
budget and wouldn't find any hint about it.
We're now removing the "Delete" action from the budgets index table,
since most of the time it isn't possible to delete a budget and so the
action takes up space and we get little gain in return. We could keep
the "Delete" icon just for budgets which can be deleted; however, the
alignment of the table rows would suffer, making it harder to find the
intended action.
We currently don't have any links in the public area pointing to past
budgets, so having links in the admin section to both the budget and its
results seemed a bit redundant. We're going to add more links to the
budget actions soon, so we need to make room for them; otherwise we'll
have too many.
We're also changing the "Preview" text for a published budget. Since the
budget is already public, we aren't previewing it anymore but simply
viewing it.
And, to be consistent with the "See results" link, we're opening the
"Preview" link in the current tab. Opening links in a new tab is
generally a bad idea because takes control away from users, breaks the
back button and makes navigation particularly hard on mobile browsers.
It could be argued that in this case it's useful when users are editing
the budget in one tab and previewing it in another one, so we might add
this behavior back as long as we make it clear that the link opens in a
new tab [1].
[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/new-browser-windows-and-tabs/
Calculating winners before the balloting is over is useless (results
aren't published at that point) and can lead to the wrong results since
users are still voting and results might change.
And we were showing the button to calculate winners even when a budget
had finished. However, in this case the action to calculate winners did
nothing, which resulted in administrators seeing nothing happened after
pressing the button.
Before, users needed to navigate to the list of groups in order to
add, edit or delete a group.
Also, they need to navigate to the list of groups first, and then to
the list of headings for that group in order to add, edit or delete a
heading.
Now, it's possible to do all these actions for any group or heading
from the participatory budget view to bring simplicity and to reduce
the number of clicks from a user perspective.
Co-Authored-By: Javi Martín <javim@elretirao.net>
