- 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
* Moved files around and updated gulpfile to correct the build process when it goes to production
* Updated fonts
* Adjusted grid templating
* Adding images to assets
* Updated account pages, dashboard, and pages in message sending flow
* Updated the styling for the landing pages in the account section once logged in
This made it easier to debug a problem with the functional tests
due to the fixtures not working correctly [^1]. It's a platform
admin only convenience over knowing the page URL.
We may want to expose the top-level "/api-integration" page but
that will require more work to show which broadcasts were sent with
which key - currently it's oriented around "messages". For now I
think it's useful to see what keys a service has.
[^1]: https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-functional-tests/pull/411#pullrequestreview-920069799
Once a broadcast has been submitted for approval it either lives on the
‘Current alerts’ or ‘Previous alerts’ page, depending on where it is
in its lifecycle.
Therefore when clicking into a broadcast from one of those pages the
same navigation item should remain selected.
Because we select the navigation items based on the request endpoint,
this means we need an endpoint for each navigation page, even if the
content of the pages will be the same in both cases.
This commit adds the two new end points, removes the old, single
endpoint and updates links to point to the new endpoint.
The dashboard for normal services is quite general, because it tells
you a bit about channels, templates and spend.
What is now the dashboard for broadcast services is much more specific,
therefore less like a dashboard. We can reflect this by giving it a more
specific name. This should reduce the amount of navigation surfing
people need to do in order to find the thing they’re looking for.
Previous alerts are much less important than ones that are live or
waiting for approval.
Therefore we can make the dashboard more focused by moving previous
alerts to their own page.
Services doing broadcasts wont:
- incur costs, so don’t need to see the usage page
- be sending anything by uploading, so don’t need to see the uploads
page
- (for now) be sending anything using the API, so don’t need to see the
API integration page
We’ve done this already for services with the upload letters permission.
And all services can upload letters now.
But we’re still returning it in the JSON response we use to AJAX-ify the
page.
Since the jobs response can query stats for up to 50 jobs at a time this
puts some load on the API/database. Hopefully this might drop that load
a bit.
Includes:
- removing all styling of those links
outside of GOV.UK Frontend (except for a few fixes
due to their interaction with our design)
- bringing together some duplicate styles into one
block
- changing how links are marked as selected, now
they have multiple classes
Fix Sass-lint error in navigation.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:
- removing all styling of those links
outside of GOV.UK Frontend (except for a few fixes
due to their interaction with our design)
- bringing together some duplicate styles into one
block
- changing how links are marked as selected, now
they have multiple classes
Fix Sass-lint error in navigation.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.
Org users, when looking at the page for their org, see:
> Usage
> Team members
When they click into a service it switches to:
> Team members
> Usage
This is jarring. It should stay consistent. I think it that _Usage_ then
_Team members_ is the natural way of ordering the navigation at the
organisation level, so let’s follow that through to the service level.
This does mean that if someone is a member of both an organisation and a
service that the nav will jump (because it’ll switch to the existing,
service-level order of _Team members_ then _Usage_) but it’s going to
jump anyway because you get all the extra navigation items when you’re a
member of a service.
At the moment they can only see it if there are existing jobs. This
commit lets them also see it if their service can upload letters,
because caseworkers might be the ones uploading some letters.
The uploads hub is just a page with text for now - there are no actions
available on the page. It is linked to from a new 'Uploads' menu item on
the left of the page which is only visible if your service has the
`letter` and `upload_letters` permissions and if the current user has
permissions to send messages.
Organisation team members will be ultimately interested in the detailed
usage of each service, but shouldn't necessarily have access to the
personal data of that services users.
So we should allow these organisation team members to navigate to live
services usage page from the organisation page. They may need to contact
the team so they should also be able to view the team members page.
So they'll then see just usage and team members pages.
If they are actually a team member of the service they're viewing, then
they'll see the full range of options as usual.
This commit implement the above by adding an extra flag to the
`user.has_permissions` decorator which allows certain pages to be marked
as viewable by an organisation user. The default (for all other existing
pages) is that organisation users don’t have permission.
Our research and prototyping around ‘basic view’ found that:
- a lot of users who send messages rarely or never look at the dashboard
(yet it’s the first page they see when they sign in)
- team managers like the idea of taking away things that users don’t
need in order to make the interface simpler
We’ve disentangled the simpler way of sending messages from being part
of ‘basic view’. This means we can give managers the option of taking
away the dashboard as an independent choice, not something that’s
wrapped up in a separate ‘view’.
I think that this checkbox is a more straightforward proposition than
‘basic view’ ever was (despite all the work we did to explain it and
develop the nested checkbox pattern). In research users would often
explain the feature back to us as being about hiding the dashboard – we
should try to make Notify operate in terms of concepts that come
naturally to people wherever possible.
There are some teams who send jobs on a daily/weekly basis. They have
team members who only use Notify for this purpose. So they would
probably benefit from basic view, because they don’t need to see the
dashboard.
This commit:
- adds a new item (uploaded files) to the basic view navigation for
teams that have sent at least one job
- makes the job pages visible to basic view users
I think we should do this now, rather than as a later enhancement to
basic view. We only have one chance to announce the feature, so teams
who do send jobs may otherwise discount it as not useful for them and
the opportunity to have them use it is lost.
From Karl:
> Templates – this should be consistent with Admin view. Users may
> switch from Basic to Admin view (or vice versa), they will also
> interact with users who have a different view or permissions to them.
> Neither should have to learn new interfaces and language if possible.
> ‘Send a message’ was a nice, active label – but Notify options aren’t
> usually actions. If we’re going to change this we should be consistent
> across both Admin and Basic views.
> For the same reason, I have rejected ‘see’, ‘search’ and ‘view sent
> messages’. It will be interesting to see in user testing whether users
> read ‘sent messages’ as ‘send messages’.
The other task that caseworkers have to do (much less often than sending
messages) is look at the messages which they’ve sent. The reason for
doing this is usually to find a specific message which someone has
complained about.
This commit adds:
- a page where they can do that
- a navigation item so they can get to that page
We reckon that because this is about finding specific messages, not
reporting that it’s fine to mush all the channels (email, text, letter)
into one table.
The main task that we think ‘caseworker’ users do is send one off
messages.
So this commit:
- makes sure users who don’t have the `view_activity` permission (ie
not ‘admin’ users) can still send messages
- adds navigation so that these users have a place to go from which to
start the process of sending a one off message
Because we have multiple navigations, which will share the same methods
(by subclassing) but different mappings of navigation items to endpoints
by overriding the `.mapping` and `.exclude` attributes.
In research I’ve sometimes seen people click the wrong nav item. I
reckon that people’s concept of which pages live behind which navigation
items isn’t very strong.
We can reinforce this relationship by showing, for every page, which is
the corresponding nav item. The conventional way of doing this is either
with some kind of emphasis, typically colour or bold. I’ve gone for bold
because colour would be weird.
---
The implementation of this is quite loosely coupled to our application
code because:
- our application code is not well structured (eg we don’t make any use
of blueprints)
- spreading this change across lots of files in our application would
make it harder to test without actually hitting each endpoints; such
tests would be slow and verbose
So I’ve gone for more of a meta approach. Rather than testing that each
endpoint has a specific navigation item selected, I’ve gone for
validating that:
- all endpoints being mapped to are real
- all endpoints have _a_ selected navigation item (or are specifically
excluded)
This means that it’s impossible to add, change or remove an endpoint
without also updating which navigation item should be selected. And the
actual mapping is so declarative that it testing it would be redundant.
we branch on any_ to either say "require ALL these permissions" or
"require ANY of these permissions". But we only ever call the decorator
with one permission, or with any_=True, so it's unnecessary
when added to a service, all users are given the view_activity
permission. So, if that's included in the list, we don't need `any_`,
and we don't need any of the other permissions.
