‘Caseworker’ was a bad name because it:
- suggested that Notify might be expanding into case management
- may or may not map to someone’s actual role, in a confusing way (this
is why ‘manager’ is also a bad name)
‘Basic view’ is the best name we could come up with because:
- it describes the purpose of feature, not the user
- a ‘view’ changes what you can _see_ as much as it changes what you can
do
Admin remains a good word – in research users self-describe their use
of Notify in using it. This commit makes the name ‘admin view’ to match
‘basic view’.
This also means we can hide the legend for this fieldset because the
choices are self-explanatory.
In research we found that:
- people didn’t initially realise that the permissions expanded when the
‘admin’ option was selected
- not having all the options visible at once makes it hard to know what
permissions you are (and more importantly aren’t) giving to people
This commit makes it so that:
- the options within the ‘admin’ option are always visible
- a bit of Javascript logic makes it so you can pick ‘caseworker’ and
‘manage service’, for example (by deselecting one when you pick the
other)
This commit changes the form that the user sees when inviting or editing
another user, if the service has the ‘caseworking’ permission set.
This will allow creating a new type of user, one who only has the
`send_messages` permission, without the `view_activity` permission.
We are doing this because we think there are a number of services with a
lot of users who don’t need to see the dashboard, or the other team
members, and that we can make a simpler interface for these users.
If we’re going to ‘disable’ radio buttons then we should always tell
users why the radio button is disabled.
This is what we found with the API key choices anyway.
We’ve seen from research (a long time ago) that the ‘manage service’
permission is too broad, and gives too much control to someone who only
needs the ability to edit templates. In other words, editing content
should be its own, separate permission, rather than being rolled up
into manage service.
Since this is already disaggregated on the API side, making this change
just means changing the mapping on the admin side and adding an extra
checkbox on the invite/edit page. Which is what this commit does.
So for now, an existing user who has the manage service permission gets
both manage service and manage templates (ie no change to what they can
do). Newly invited users will get to choose if they have both, either,
or neither.
The visual appearance of radio and checkbox form inputs changed in
GOV.UK Elements here:
https://github.com/alphagov/govuk_elements/pull/296
This was subsequently reimplemented with different markup and no
Javascript here:
https://github.com/alphagov/govuk_elements/pull/406
This has meant making the following changes to our app:
- changing the markup in our radio/checkbox macros to match the example
markup given by GOV.UK Elements
- removing the previous Javascript file because it’s no longer needed to
make the radios appear visual selected
- making the buttons on the scheduled job picker look like links,
because the grey button style looked weird with the new radio buttons
The yes/no pattern didn’t work too well, because:
- it didn’t read naturally as a question and answer
- often users left them completely unclicked if they didn’t want to set
the permission (rather than clicking no)
This commit changes both the invite and edit user pages to use
checkboxes to set permissions. If also rewords these pages to read more
naturally, and explain what the permissions mean.
This meant changing some of the view logic around invites and
persmissions, and I ended up refactoring a bunch of it because I found
it hard to understand what was going on.
