Currently the translation:
"Notify me by email when someone comments on my proposals or debates"
It only refers to proposals and debates, but actually it also refers to budget
investments, topics and polls.
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.
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.
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.
So now:
* In the first few phases, no filters are shown (just like before)
* During the valuation phase, we show "Active" and "Unfeasible"
* During the final voting, we show "Active" (which now refers to the
selected investments), "Not selected for the final voting" and
"Unfeasible"
* When the budget is finished, we show "Winners", "Not selected for the
final voting" and "Unfeasible"
Now each investment is shown in one (and only one) of the filters
(except when the budget is finished; in this case we don't show selected
investments which didn't win), and we remove the confusing "Not
unfeasible" filter by only showing it during the valuation phase (before
filters are selected) and renaming it to "Active". We also rearrange the
filters so the default one for each phase is shown first.
The idea of using the "Active" text for investments which can be
selected during the selection phase and voted during the final voting is
experimental. Right now, for simplicity, since we assume filters will
always use the same text, we're removing the "Active" filter when the
budget is finished, since having both "Winners" and "Active" filters
would be confusing.
In this PR (https://github.com/consul/consul/pull/4683) a new syntax was introduced
in the component specs to check that the component was not rendering.
It seems interesting to add this syntax to the rest of the cases and thus unify the way
we check that a component is not rendering.
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.
Before the "valuating" phase, all investments have undecided feasibility
and none have been selected, so the filters would return no results
(except the "not_unfeasible" one, which would return everything).
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.
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.
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>
In the past it would have been confusing to add a way to directly
enable/disable a phase in the phases table because it was in the middle
of the form. So we would have had next to each other controls that don't
do anything until the form is sent and controls which modify the
database immediately. That's why we couldn't add the checkboxes we used
when using the wizard.
Now the phases aren't on the same page as the budget form, so we can
edit them independently. We're using a switch, so it's consistent with
the way we enable/disable features. We could have used checkboxes, but
with checkboxes, users expect they aren't changing anything until they
click on a button to send the form, so we'd have to add a button, and it
might be missed since we're going to add "buttons" for headings and
groups to this page which won't send a form but will be links.
Since we're changing the element with JavaScript after an AJAX call, we
need a way to find the button we're changing. The easiest way is adding
an ID attribute to all admin actions buttons/links.
Having links in the middle of a form distracts users from the task of
filling in the form, and following a link before submitting the form
will mean whatever has been filled in is lost.
And the budgets form is already very long and hard to fill in. Having
the phases table in the middle of it made it even harder. And, since
we're planning to add the option to manage groups and headings from the
same page, it's better to have a dedicated page for the form.
These tests don't work without JavaScript. They were passing because the
`within` method always passes in component tests.
This reverts most of commit 822140a14.
In component tests, the `within` method is actually an alias to RSpec's
`be_within` matcher, which is used to test numeric ranges. That meant
the tests always passed, even when there were bugs on the page.
In order to use `within` in component tests, we have to use
`page.within`. However, that also fails, since there's no such method
for `Capybara::Node::Simple'` objects, which are used in component
tests.
So we're using `page.find` instead.
See also pull request 945 in https://github.com/github/view_component
This way it's easier to test; changing it will also be easier.
During my experiments I made a mistake which wasn't covered by the test
suite. We're adding a test for this case.
Note we're using `i18n_content` in the component instead of `content`
because there's already a `content` method provided by ViewComponent.
We were already doing so for debates and investments.
We probably never noticed because this is an edge case that requires
enabling a feature, people adding comments, and then disabling the
feature.
It could be argued that seeing which proposals a user follows is a good
indicator of which proposals a user has supported, since we're
automatically creating follows for supported proposals since commit
74fbde09f. So now, we're extending the `public_interests` funcionality,
so it only shows elements users are following if they've enabled it.
This is an improvement over using the `public_activity` attribute in two
ways:
* The `public_interests` attribute is disabled by default, so by default
other users won't be able to see what a user is following
* Who has created proposals/debates/investments/comments is public
information, while who is following which elements is not; so enabling
`public_activity` shouldn't imply potentially private information should
be displayed as well
We've considered removing the `public_interests` attribute completely
and just hiding the "following" page for everyone except its owner, but
keeping it provides more compatibility with existing installations.
Since targets didn't have a title but only a long description, every
form allowing to select targets was pretty much unusable: we either
displayed just the code or the whole description.
Now, with a concise title, it's easier to find and select the desired
target.
The titles have been copied from The Global Goals page [1].
Note we're using the `short_title` I18n key for the `title` method and
the `long_title` I18n key for the `long_title` method. We can't use
`title` as I18n key instead of `short_title` because it would affect
existing translations.
[1] https://www.globalgoals.org/
The same way we don't render empty regular tags since commit 4d27bbeba.
This way we avoid adding an empty `<div class="sdg-tag-list">` tag,
which might have associated styles (in custom CONSUL installation
styles, for instance) and thus break the layout
Based on an EPS file downloaded from The Global Goals page [1].
Although in that page there are icons for other languages we support and
that we've only got in PNG format, the Spanish ones are the only ones
which are similar to the official PNG ones provided by the UN or
UN-related organizations like UNRIC. Icons in other languages (like
Chinese, French or Russian) are not that similar to the official PNG
icons and their quality is (in my humble opinion) lower.
Since SVG icons are smaller and can be compressed, users browsing the
page in Spanish will have to download about 80KB for the SDG icons,
instead of the 240KB they needed to download when using PNGs.
[1] https://www.globalgoals.org/resources
These icons have been downloaded from The Global Goals page [1]. English
is the official language of this page and the only one containing all
the information.
Since SVG icons are smaller and can be compressed, users browsing the
page in English will have to download about 45KB for the SDG icons,
instead of the 250KB they needed to download when using PNGs.
[1] https://globalgoals.org
We were using buttons with the "Enable" and "Disable" texts to
enable/disable settings. However, when machine learning settings were
introduced in commit 4d27bbeba, a switch control was introduced to
enable/disable them.
In order to keep the interface consistent, we're now using switch
controls in other sections where settings are enabled/disabled. We can
even use the same code in the machine learning settings as well.
We're also removing the confirmation dialog to enable/disable a setting,
since the dialog is really annoying when changing several settings and
this action can be undone immediately. The only setting which might need
a confirmation is the "Skip user verification" one; we might add it in
the future. Removing the confirmation here doesn't make things worse,
though; the "Are you sure?" confirmation dialog was also pretty useless
and users would most likely blindly accept it.
Note Capybara doesn't support finding a button by its `aria-labelledby`
atrribute. Ideally we'd write `click_button "Participatory budgeting"`
instead of `click_button "Yes"`, since from the user's point of view the
"Yes" or "No" texts aren't button labels but indicators of the status of
the setting. This makes the code a little brittle since tests would pass
even if the element referenced by `aria-labelledby` didn't exist.
By default, Rails disables submit inputs (<input type="submit">) when
they're pressed so we avoid a double-submission when users click the
button twice.
However, Rails does not disable submit buttons (<button type="submit">)
when they're pressed. This means there's a chance users might press the
button several times. Even if most our table actions are idempotent, it
might cause certain issues. For instance, pressing the "Delete" button
twice means the second request might raise an
`ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound` exception.
Disabling the button also gives feedback to users, letting them know
they've correctly clicked the button.
Links acting like buttons have a few disadvantages.
First, screen readers will announce them as "links". Screen reader users
usually associate links with "things that get you somewhere" and buttons
with "things that perform an action". So when something like "Delete,
link" is announced, they'll probably think this is a link which will
take them to another page where they can delete a record.
Furthermore, the URL of the link for the "destroy" action might be the
same as the URL for the "show" action (only one is accessed with a
DELETE request and the other one with a GET request). That means screen
readers could announce the link like "Delete, visited link", which is
very confusing.
They also won't work when opening links in a new tab, since opening
links in a new tab always results in a GET request to the URL the link
points to.
Finally, submit buttons work without JavaScript enabled, so they'll work
even if the JavaScript in the page hasn't loaded (for whatever reason).
For all these reasons (and probably many more), using a button to send
forms is IMHO superior to using links.
There's one disadvantage, though. Using `button_to` we create a <form>
tag, which means we'll generate invalid HTML if the table is inside
another form. If we run into this issue, we need to use `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute and then generate a form somewhere else inside
the HTML (with `content_for`).
Note we're using `button_to` with a block so it generates a <button>
tag. Using it in a different way the text would result in an <input />
tag, and input elements can't have pseudocontent added via CSS.
The following code could be a starting point to use the `button_tag`
with a `form` attribute. One advantage of this approach is screen
readers wouldn't announce "leaving form" while navigating through these
buttons. However, it doesn't work in Internet Explorer.
```
ERB:
<% content_for(:hidden_content, form_tag(path, form_options) {}) %>
<%= button_tag text, button_options %>
Ruby:
def form_id
path.gsub("/", "_")
end
def form_options
{ id: form_id, method: options[:method] }
end
def button_options
html_options.except(:method).merge(form: form_id)
end
Layout:
<%= content_for :hidden_content %> # Right before the `</body>`
```
The message "Are you sure?" is usually followed by blindly clicking
"Yes" without really thinking about what one is doing. So we're
including a bit more information about what's about to happen. That way
it's more likely users will notice it when they accidentally click the
wrong button.
Ideally we would offer the option to undo every common action and then
we wouldn't have to ask for confirmation. But since that isn't the case,
for now we're adding a better confirmation message.
Note we're removing the `resource_name` parameter from the translation
to confirm the action of deleting a record. The reason is, in many
languages it only makes sense to add the model name when it's got an
associated article, and, unlike in English (where "the" is used for
every word), that article is different depending on the noun it's
related to. So we'd have to provide a translation like "name with
article, when singular" for every model.
The complexity of these translations could scalate quickly. And, given
the context, IMHO it isn't essential to add the resouce name. When we're
in the proposals index and there's a proposal named "Improve XYZ", and
we click on "Delete" and see a message saying "This action will delete
XYZ", it is implied that XYZ is a proposal.
So instead we're changing the message so it works for every record with
no need of noun-dependent articles.
This way screen reader users will know which record they're going to
access when focusing on a link to a certain action. Otherwise they'd
hear something like "Edit, link", and they wouldn't know which record
they'll end up editing if they follow the link.
This way it will be easier to change the behavior of all table actions,
like adding ARIA attributes. In the past, when we changed the behavior
of the `link_to` method, we had to change all table action classes.
The `sign_in(nil)` method was a bit hard to understand IMHO. After all,
in controller and system tests we don't have to specify no user is
signed in; that's the default behavior.
So we're making it the default behavior for component tests as well.
We're not adding the rule because it would apply the current line length
rule of 110 characters per line. We still haven't decided whether we'll
keep that rule or make lines shorter so they're easier to read,
particularly when vertically splitting the editor window.
So, for now, I'm applying the rule to lines which are about 90
characters long.
