- Deleted /stylesheets folder
- Removed sass build from gulpfile
- Changed gov links to usa links
- Changed other govuk styles, like breadcrumbs
- Changed name of uk_components file to us_components
- Fixed a few tests that broke on account of the changes
* Updated header and footer
* Updated fonts
* Moved files around and updated gulpfile to correct the build process when it goes to production
* Adjusted grid templating
* Added images to assets
* Update app/templates/components/uk_components/footer/template.njk
Co-authored-by: Steven Reilly <stvnrlly@users.noreply.github.com>
The page_header macro includes an optional back link. Since the
page_header is always used inside `<main>`, where the back link should
not be, this stops setting the back link in the page header and instead
sets it in the new `backLink` block.
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.
We had 7 classes in _grids.scss named `.column-...` which were being
used to give a certain column width. These worked by using `@include
grid column()`, which is now deprecated.
`.column-whole` and `.column-three-quarters` can be removed and replaced
with `govuk-grid-column-full` and `govuk-grid-column-three-quarters`
respectively. The other column classes don't have a direct replacment in
GOV.UK Frontend. To get round this, we overwrite the `$govuk-grid-width`
SASS map in `extensions.scss` to add in extra widths, then use this with
the `govuk-grid-column` mixin to create new classes in for our custom
widths in `_grids.scss`
Includes:
- turning off :visited styles to match existing
design
- swapping heading classes used to make links bold
for the GOVUK Frontend bold override class
- adding visually hidden text to some links to
make them work when isolated from their context
We may need to revisit whether some links, such as
those for documentation and features, may benefit
from having some indication that their target has
been visited.
Includes:
- turning off :visited styles to match existing
design
- swapping heading classes used to make links bold
for the GOVUK Frontend bold override class
- adding visually hidden text to some links to
make them work when isolated from their context
We may need to revisit whether some links, such as
those for documentation and features, may benefit
from having some indication that their target has
been visited.
We want GPs to be able to accept the agreement online. But at the moment
they don’t get automatically assigned to organisations. So we need to
let them enter the agreement accepting journey even if they don’t have
an organisation set up.
The Design System has standardised on back links being at the top of the
page, decorated with a small text-coloured arrow.
I think this makes more sense than having them at the bottom, because it
suggests, in some way, being able to go back before commiting to any of
the forms on the page. Whereas the things at the bottom of the page
should be performing actions on what’s in the page.
The reason for making this change now is that it de-clutters the area
around the green buttons. This was presenting a design challenge where
multiple levels of interaction were happening in the same form. Moving
these back links to the top of the page should mean that, in these
complicated forms, there’s one fewer thing to compete for the user’s
attention.
I’ve componentised this into a `page_header` macro so that the change is
easier to roll out and maintain.
Dealing with users who request to go live but haven’t completed all the
steps still represents a significant support overhead for our team.
We’ve made some improvements to the percentage of incomplete requests
with a better page design, but ultimately because it still shows the
button people think it’s OK to press the button while some of the items
on the page still say [Not completed].
We can do this now because organisations are in the database, which
means we can mark the agreement signed as soon as we get it back,
without having to deploy code.
It should be:
- if they have said they are going to send by a certain channel, show
the extra required task(s) for that channel
- if they haven’t said, infer from which templates they have
If you have email templates but haven’t told us what volumes you’re
sending we should assume you are going to send emails. We should only
stop asking you to add a reply-to address once you’ve told us for sure
you’re not going to send any emails.
This also applies to changing the text message sender – this should only
be hidden if you don’t have text message templates or you’ve said you’re
not going to be sending any text messages.
We get a bunch of requests to go live where people have told us they're
going to send email but there is no email reply-to address present.
These come from 2 scenarios:
1. when there are email templates, and no reply to address – but they
ignore the checklist
2. when there are no email templates (yet) but they provide anticipated
volumes for email
At the moment we only auto-check for a reply to address when they have
email templates. And because the question about anticipated volumes
follows the checklist, you'll get a checklist that passes (reply
addresses not required as no templates present) - but your future intent
that differs (reply address IS required because you have anticipated
volumes).
So let’s bring the request for anticipated volumes into the checklist,
that way we can dynamically add the requirement for a reply to address
if they say they will send email but don't have templates yet.
We should begin storing it in the database against the service to stop
people having to re-enter it each time they try to complete the go live
screens.
This also means moving the ‘consent to research question’ along with
the questions about volume, because
- we want people to answer both before going live
- we don’t want to clutter up the summary page by asking questions there
too
Only users who work for government can accept the terms of use. This
will save us from having to email these requesters back telling them
they need to find someone else to submit the request.
2/3 of our incomplete requests to go live are incomplete because the
Data Sharing and Financial Agreement isn’t signed.
We reckon we can be pushier about this by saying it’s ‘incomplete’ where
we know the agreement is signed.
Where the agreement is signed we should confirm this, rather than make
the line disappear. This is so it makes more sense to someone who sees
it as ‘incomplete’, signs it, then comes back to the page.
If we don’t know whether or not the agreement is signed we should wait
until someone has got in touch with us by requesting to go live to
figure it out. So that’s why we’re not showing that line at all.
This duplicates how the task list pattern is coded in the GOV.UK
Prototype kit[1]. It adds ARIA attributes and the use of a
semantically-meaningful element (`<strong>`) to give more information to
screen reader users.
1. https://govuk-prototype-kit.herokuapp.com/docs/templates/task-list
We often check that a service has an appropriate text message sender as
a condition of them going live. We don’t mention this anywhere.
The services for whom GOVUK is definitely not an appropriate sender are
those in local government. As we have more of these teams starting to
use Notify, we should streamline the process by making this check
automated.
This commit adds that check, for teams who:
- have text message templates
- have self-declared as NHS or local government
We’ve found a significant property of users (about 25%) who request to
go live aren’t completing all the items on the checklist.
In 1 of 6 (17%) of the usability testing sessions we did on this process
we saw someone skip straight past the checklist page because of big
green button syndrome. While 1 in 6 people would normally be a small
number[1] in the context of a usability testing session, it’s enough to
cause a big workload for our team (assuming it is the sole cause of
people not completing the items on the checklist).
The initial reason for using the tick cross pattern for the checklist
was:
- it was coherent with the rest of Notify
- the task list pattern didn’t have a way of showing that something
still needed doing – it put more visual emphasis on the things
the user had already done
There’s been some interesting discussion on the GOV.UK Design System
backlog about users failing to complete items in the task list. A few
people have tried different patterns for communicating that items in the
task list still need ‘completing’.
So this commit:
- adds a task list pattern
- uses the task list pattern for the request to go live checklist
The task list is adapted from the one in the design system in that:
- the ‘completed’ label has a black, not blue background (because Notify
often uses blocks of blue to indicate something that’s clickable)
- it adds an explicit ‘not complete’ label which is visually not
filled in (sort of how ticked/unticket radio buttons work)
1. With the caveat that looking only at task completion, or quantifying
qualitative not good practices and the intention here is to show that
the numbers are close enough to say that they could be symptomatic of
the same problem. Leisa Reichelt’s Mind the Product talk is good on
this https://vimeo.com/284015765
Adding a ‘testing’ template it not enough. It needs to have some real
looking content, so that we can:
- work out what a service is doing
- assess whether that’s a reasonable (ie meeting the terms of use) thing
to be doing with Notify
At the moment we’re having to go back to services quite a lot when they
request to go live and ask them for this stuff.
We require that a user has a real reply-to email address before going
live. We can partially automate this by at least telling users who
haven’t done this.
This only applies for users that have email templates; we shouldn’t
bother users who aren’t going to send emails about this.
We need users to have created some templates before they go live, so we
can see what kind of messages they intend to send.
We can do this automatically based on the work done in
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/1892
One of the things that we want to check before a service goes live is
that they have at least two team members with the manage service
permission. Anyone who can make a request to go live has this
permission, so that means one additional user is needed. This is what we
can automatically communicate to the user.
Under the hood this makes use of the logic added in
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/1891
We have tickets from people asking how long the process takes. I suspect
that this is because they’re not getting to the bottom of the form
before they’re ready to go live.
A lot of users aren’t reading or paying attention to the checklist on
the request to go live page. We think that we can get more people to
read it by putting it on its own page, where users won’t jump straight
to filling in the form.
This will, later on, let us make this page smarter by automatically
detecting if they’ve done the necessary things.
It’s ‘per month’ – ‘a month’ is a colloquialism.
Large numbers should be chunked using commas; ‘20,000’ already is, this commit makes ‘1000’ consistent.
When we first made this form you couldn’t send one off messages with
Notify. It’s interesting to us because it might help identity teams who
would benefit from email auth, or other features that we build in the
future for caseworkers.
