For a training broadcast the user doesn’t get that immediate feedback
that something has happened, like they would with a real alert, or even
sending themselves a text message.
This commit adds another tour-style page which will interrupt their
journey and hopefully reinforce the message we’ve given them earlier in
the tour.
We’re adding this because we’ve found in research that users don’t have
a good grasp of the consequences and severity of emergency alerts,
versus regular text messages.
At the moment there are some areas which have:
- a `count_of_phones` value of `None`
- no sub-areas
This is wrong, but until we fix the data the phone counting code needs
to handle this.
This commit:
- adds the `or 0` in the right place (where it will catch these areas
with missing data)
- adds a test which checks these areas, and compares them to other kinds
of areas
This is a better name for the module because it’s:
- not just constants, there’s a method in here now
- only stuff to do with populations, not other kinds of constants
Includes:
- fixes for the cancel button, when selecting a
template type (after clicking 'New template')
- making the folder icon black, to match the text,
on template list items
We have some radios using the GOVUK Frontend
radios component in this app. They are version
2.x.x though so this bumps their styles to version
3.x.x to get the new focus style.
It has a hover colour so needs the focus colour
re-defined.
The `overflow: hidden` was clipping the black
underline of the focus style on the prev/next
links. This assumes it was only there to contain
the 2 floating links so replaces it with a
clearfix, which does the same without clipping the
underline.
They originals didn't explain what the tests do.
We could test the contents of the range but that
would be testing the Range API, rather than our
use of it.
The tests test how we use that API for these
scenarios so their descriptions should say this.
We need to give people a better feel for the consequences of
broadcasting an alert. We’ve seen in research that some users will
assume it is subscription based, or opt-in, rather than going to every
phone in the area.
I reckon that the most effective way to communicate this is to put some
numbers next to the areas, to give people an idea of how many people
will get alerted.
We can estimate how many phones are in an area by:
- taking the population of all electoral wards in that area
- multiplying it by the percentage of people who own an internet
connected phone[1]
The Office for National Statistics publish both these datasets.
The number of people who own an intenet connected phone varies a lot by
age. Since the population data for each ward is broken down by age we
can factor this in. Simplified, the calculation looks like this:
- take the _Abbey_ ward of _Barking and Dagenham_
- in this ward there are 26 people aged 80
- 40% of people over 65 have an internet-connected phone
- therefore 10 of these 80-year-olds would be likely to receive a
broadcast
- (repeat for all other ages)
These numbers won’t be exact, but should be enough to give people a feel
for the severity of what they’re about to do. We can see if they acheive
this aim in user research.
1. This is a proxy for the number of people who are likely to have a 4G
capable phone, because only 4G capable phones will be receiving
broadcasts to begin with
We filter out very small polygons from the original data to remove
glitches. These glitches are caused by trying to subtract the water from
a polygon that includes some land and some water, but using two
different definitions or resolutions of mean high water line.
If we don’t do this then we end up with a bunch of very small polygons
which lie far outside the understood area of a place, causing large
overspill.
We need to increase the threshold for this process because we’re still
seeing this problem around Bristol and Norwich.
This does mean we lose a few very small polygons in places like Shetland
and the Scilly Isles, but not in such a way that we would avoid
broadcasting to them (because they’d still be caught by the
simplification and overspill).
Previously attempted in this commit by changing
the element to a <section>:
e815a73233
This broke the updateContent.js, that polls the
JSON endpoint for the partial and updates its
content with changes sent back. From what I could
tell, it broke it because the JS that does the
update gets the diff between the current partial
and the one sent in JSON and applies it to the
current one.
If the notification hasn't completed before the
page loads, the partial added to the page has a
<div> wrapping it, to initalise the
updateContent.js JS. This means the diff ends up
being between elements with a different level of
hierarchy:
Element 1:
<div data-module="update-content">
<div class="ajax-block-container">
...
</div>
</div>
Element 2:
<div class="ajax-block-container">
...
</div>
This seems to work OK when the partial
is a <div>, I assume because it's the same type of
element as the wrapper, but not when it's a
<section>:
Element 1:
<div data-module="update-content">
<section class="ajax-block-container">
...
</section>
</div>
Element 2:
<section class="ajax-block-container">
...
</section>
Because of all this, it's easier to just give it
the role of 'region'.
