This should:
- make the page load faster because it has to render less HTML for each
service
- make the page easier to scan for services that are sending lots of
text messages or letters
We used to scan this page to look for services with high failure rates,
and the design of the page was gear towards this. Now we have alerting
for high failure rates, so the page can focus on volumes instead.
This commit also puts the service name above the statistics, so that
long service names don’t break the layout of the page.
We’re removing it for performance reasons.
This means removing the old pages that edited the letter contact block
when it was stored directly on the service, rather than the current
model where a service can have multiple contact blocks.
This should speed things up by:
- less time waiting for big blobs of JSON to come from Redis or the API
- less time spent deserialising big blobs of JSON
‘Commonly used passwords’ is more specific, and avoids the terminology
‘blacklist’ which the National Cyber Security Centre explain to be
problematic:
> It's fairly common to say whitelisting and blacklisting to describe desirable and undesirable things in cyber security. For instance, when talking about which applications you will allow or deny on your corporate network; or deciding which bad passwords you want your users not to be able to use.
>
> However, there's an issue with the terminology. It only makes sense if you equate white with 'good, permitted, safe' and black with 'bad, dangerous, forbidden'. There are some obvious problems with this. So in the name of helping to stamp out racism in cyber security, we will
> avoid this casually pejorative wording on our website in the future. No, it's not the biggest issue in the world - but to borrow a slogan from elsewhere: every little helps.
– https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/terminology-its-not-black-and-white
This commit changes all the places where a user would see the term
‘whitelist’ in the content of page to say guestlist instead.
We’re removing the term ‘whitelist’ for two reasons. The first reason
is that we agree with the National Cyber Security Centre say:
> It's fairly common to say whitelisting and blacklisting to describe
> desirable and undesirable things in cyber security. For instance, when
> talking about which applications you will allow or deny on your
> corporate network; or deciding which bad passwords you want your users
> not to be able to use.
> However, there's an issue with the terminology. It only makes sense if
> you equate white with 'good, permitted, safe' and black with 'bad,
> dangerous, forbidden'. There are some obvious problems with this. So
> in the name of helping to stamp out racism in cyber security, we will
> avoid this casually pejorative wording on our website in the future.
> No, it's not the biggest issue in the world - but to borrow a slogan
> from elsewhere: every little helps.
– https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/terminology-its-not-black-and-white
The second reason is that we’ve observed some users think that they have
to put recipients in the whitelist even when they’re already with in the
team. We think that the term ‘whitelist’ might be reinforcing this
mental model because of how ‘whitelists’ might work in other
applications.
We considered the following alternatives or concepts:
- Development
- Recipients
- Sandbox
- Extended team
- Smoke test recipients
- Allowed
- Nominated
- Bonus
- Additional
- Safe
- Team list
- Trusted contacts
- Designated people
- Guest list
- Team key list
We also considered not giving it a name, and explaining it as a nuance
of how the team key works. After mocking this up it felt more disjoined.
We think it’s still useful for the thing to have a name so that it’s
easy to refer to between the docs and the UI.
We like the term ‘guest list’ because:
- of how it sits with team members – members and guests in the abstract
- a guest list is a concept that a lot of people will be familiar with
– a list of people who can access a thing
- ‘guest’ is very different to ‘recipient’ – we want to mitigate any
confusion between this and the (emergency) contact lists
All the constructor of the service model is doing is setting a default
value of a property, this is more idiomatically expressed with a custom
property, and means we can get rid of the custom constructor entirely.
Since these two paragraphs sit on a blue background, they should have
white text. But this was getting overridden when the `govuk-body` class
was added in a previous commit, and the paragraphs appeared with black
text.
Previously these paragraphs were inheriting their colour from a parent
element. But a class applied directly to the element is more specific.
So this commit fixes the problem by being more specific again, by
applying the colour to the element, in the context of it’s parent’s
class.
All paragraphs should have class="govuk-body", or be otherwise
custom-styled. This commit adds some extra checks to our test fixture
that looks for paragraphs that don’t have any styling. Our test coverage
is pretty good, so this should check almost all pages, and prevent
regressions.
I’ve done this in such a way that it can be extended for other elements
(e.g. links) in the future.
