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.
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>
This way we remove duplication and it'll be easier to add better support
for RTL languages.
In a few years this might not be necessary since support for the `gap`
property in a flexbox layout will improve. At the time of writing,
however, only 86.5% of the browsers support it [1].
[1] https://caniuse.com/flexbox-gap
There were times when some actions had text expanding over two lines
while other actions had text on just one line.
Since all the items in a row had the same height, the elements with just
one line added a blank second line. This was obvious when hovering with
the mouse or focusing on the element with the keyboard. It looked weird
when the element received focused, and it could also lead to
unintentional clicks when clicking on the blank space below the element.
The underline text decoration looked a bit strange with the icon on top
of it, and we had an inconsistency since links had a text decoration but
buttons didn't. I think we can remove it since both the color of the
icon and the cursor change on hover and that's enough feedback.
And we were accidentally overwriting the color of the investments link
on hover and focus.
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>`
```
In commit 9794ffbbf, we replaced "buttons" with icons in order to make
the admin interface consistent with the planned budget investments
redesign.
However, using icons has some issues. For once, icons like a trash for
the "delete" action might be obvious, but other icons like "confirm
moderation" or "send pending" might be a bit confusing.
It's true that we were adding tooltips on hover. We tried two
approaches: using Foundation's tooltips and using CSS tooltips.
Foundation tooltips are not activated on focus (only on hover), while
CSS tooltips always appear below the icon, which might be a problem when
the icons are at the bottom of the screen (one of our milestone tests
was failing because of that and we can now run it with JavaScript
enabled).
Both Foundation and CSS tooltips have other issues:
* They force users to make an extra step and move the mouse over the
link just to know what the link is about
* They aren't available on touch screens, so these users will have to
memorize what each icon does
* They are not hoverable, and making them hoverable would cause a
different issue because the tooltip might cover links below it, making
it impossible to click these links without moving the mouse away
first
* They are not dismissable, which is considered an accessibility issue
and a requirement in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [1]
For all these reasons, we're using both texts and icons. As Thomas
Byttebier said "The best icon is a text label [2]". Heydon Pickering
also makes a point towards providing text alongside icons in his book
"Inclusive Components" [3].
Note that, since we're now adding text and some of the colors we use for
actions are hard to read against a white/gray background, we're making a
few colors darker.
With these changes, actions take more space in the admin table compared
to the space they took in version 1.3, but they are more usable and
accessible while they still take less space than they did in version
1.2.
[1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/content-on-hover-or-focus
[2] https://thomasbyttebier.be/blog/the-best-icon-is-a-text-label
[3] https://inclusive-components.design/tooltips-toggletips/
Using 10000px means content will be visible on screens with ultra-high
resolution (although I don't think they exist nor will exist anytime
soon).
Having screens in the future with a width of 1000rem is less likely,
since a line with 1000 characters would be pretty much impossible to
read.
The planned budget investments redesign includes using icons in some
tables, so we might as well use them everywhere.
The original design used Foundation to show the tooltips. We're using
CSS in order to keep the ERB/HTML code simple. One advantage of using
CSS is we can show the tooltip on focus as well, just like accessibility
guidelines recommend [1]. On the other hand, Foundation tooltips appear
on the sides when the link is at the bottom of the page, making sure
they're visible in this case, while CSS tooltips do not. Neither CSS
tooltips nor Foundation tooltips are dismissable, which might be an
accessibility issue.
Note we aren't changing any ERB files in order to replace links with
icons; we're only changing CSS and one line of Ruby code.
[1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/content-on-hover-or-focus
Note the CSS could probably be improved to avoid duplication with other
button style definitions. However, that's fine because we're going to
change the style of the links soon.
For the same reason, I haven't bothered to style every single link the
way it was until now.
In the past we were using some <div> tags surrounding table action
links in order to guarantee these links wouldn't be wider that their
cell's space and wouldn't expand over two lines.
However, while these links didn't expand over two lines, at certain
resolutions the width of their text exceeded the width of the links,
causing part of the text to be outside their borders.
This behavior was also inconsistent: some tables had these <div> tags,
and some tables didn't.
Since we've now introduced the table actions component, the code is more
consistent and we're getting rid of these <div> tags. So now we're again
facing the issue where links could expand over two lines.
Using a flex layout solves this issue and considerably improves the
layout at lower resolutions.
