Voting copy changes #1774
Voting copy changes #1774
Conversation
| @@ -69,137 +62,6 @@ | |||
| </div> | |||
| <?php endif; ?> | |||
|
|
|||
| <?php if ( !$current_member[HOUSE_TYPE_COMMONS] ) { ?> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the commit message for this commit should explain more that it isn't just moving, it's removing non-MP voting records entirely (as far as I read it?) (Also need a space before my email address)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also should some of the 'default' section of www/docs/mp/index.php be removed now if it's no longer needed in this template? (that would impact upon my other comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah yes - I was assuming we didn't have them but we do for the House of Lords sometimes or for ex-MPs who become something else.
Will investigate the default seciton.
ajparsons
force-pushed
the
voting-copy-changes
branch
3 times, most recently
from
d2292cb
to
e0a7c10
Compare
Remove voting summary where it would be displayed for non-MPs. This would generally be Lords/MSPs who had previously been MPs. Co-authored-by: M Somerville <[email protected]>
ajparsons
force-pushed
the
voting-copy-changes
branch
from
e0a7c10
to
f3f1db8
Compare
|
Ok, I've cleared out that default section. That adds a small menu change that if this was applied on its own would be a problem (doesn't filter to just MPs) - but it'll immediately be joined by the other branch that has tidied that menu up. If happy with that and the revised commit messages comments above should be addressed. |
- Given these are the only scoring ones under the new system
- Previously, we showed the number of votes and year range of the votes used for the party comparison. - Practically, we can't reduce these to just strong votes (as we are doing for individual MPs text) because twfy doesn't have all that info it's database. - This information is less useful that it used to be because we compare against a set of MPs that are comparable to the individual MP anyway. - So the easiest solution is just to cut down some of this information rather than update twfy-votes to pass along just the strong votes.
- Include link to fuller help page
- If we don't have minor votes/agreements etc, don't show the link in sidebar. - Because of the way this page works, not a good way to avoid doing the double loop.
- Also don't render them if we don't need to for a policy
ajparsons
force-pushed
the
voting-copy-changes
branch
from
4d9eb20
to
0313d31
Compare
New EDM link needs access to party ID
- Enables recent vote page for devolved representatives
- Enable votes link for all except NIA and LA
This supersedes and includes #1756 - rebased over more recent changes.
Basically this is making the "voting summary" page more complete in itself, with better descriptions and better interlinking with the documentation pages.
Update voting infomation page
Building on the change to make this a markdown page - new documentation page reviewed by Myf and Julia (although opinions still welcome).
Always display party comparison information
We always want this information about party to appear - even when there's no actual differences - and link to the info on party comparisons in the help page.
Simplify vote count information
As we now only score strong votes, this is now only counting them here. Because it's harder to do this for the numbers we were showing for the party comparison, I've just taken these out as the two should now be in sync anyway (looking at the same set of votes) - so it can be simplified.
Top level explanation of voting summary
New box to explain the page and link to help pages.
Having little boxes about us in here gives better places for donation asks (which could be bigger than this in future)
Link to feedback form in policy-divisions page
Link to new alchemer form asking for new votes:
Divisions votes side menu doesn't display unnecessary things
Annoyingly this means looping through this twice - but I don't think that's that expensive because it's all already queried..
As some point could just say "this page is only ever for one policy" and get rid of the structure that enables it to do multiple policies. But also, it's messy but fine.
Link to help for informative votes