As a user I would like to see the rules when I fill out a application to purchase a permit in Arapaho and Roosevelt

[sadlerw]

Notes

• This was a result from the SME usability testing in sprints 06/08.

Acceptance criteria

• [x] user can understand the rules while creating an application and is encouraged to read them through the design
• [x] updated user flow

Tasks

• [x] Finalize mockups based on feedback
• [x] TTS approval of mockups
• [x] PO approval of mockups
• [x] update content for new rules section (Jane/Bryan)
• [x] update user flow diagram (Bryan)
• [x] change button on application form to NEXT not continue to pay.gov (will)
• [x] add new route, markdown, view, component (maybe share existing) for screen after application form submit before pay.gov redirect based on mockup in 428 (will)
• [x] backend changes for initial submit to not go to pay.gov (not needed)
• [x] add separate permit-rules markdown for common permit rules (will)
• [x] update content on the application form rules page (will) -[x] move cutting area maps (will)

Definition of Done

• [x] Code unit / e2e tested and comply with QWASP
• [x] No new security vulnerabilities
• [x] Internal team code review
• [x] Documentation / readme.md / CircleCI updated
• [x] Docker updated
• [x] Compare finished design with mockup
• [x] Usability tested

[ASprinkle]

See example 2 in story #429

[sadlerw]

[sadlerw]

[npage123]

@bryanmcfadden - Thoughts on putting the "I acknowledge" checkbox and message outside of the rules container (gray box). I'm seeing it as being something that would print out when printing the rules where it wouldn't need to?

[bryanmcfadden]

@npage123 - The "I acknowledge" technically is located outside the rules container (only the the white area is printed). The grey box which is attached to the rules (white area) associates the required user action specifically to the rules and not the page.

Legally speaking, I don't think it's a bad thing if the "I acknowledge" section was also included with the rules printed out...it just strengthens the legal binding.....which is something the LEO's have been concerned about in usability testing.

[sadlerw]

I think creating a print version of the rules should be a separate story - it wasn't discussed as part of the acceptance criteria for this story. Is that ok @ASprinkle ?

[ASprinkle]

If it makes sense to make it a separate story lets do that if it is too much of a heavy task to do under this story. We should keep in mind that we also have a story that addresses printing rules from an email. But it would be good if the user could print something they are required to agree to before moving forward.

[sadlerw]

483 created for the print button

[sadlerw]

I have implemented the design with the forest name in the same format as on the first page of the application, i.e. outside of the white box for consistency. It was added in the white box because of an assumption about printing that isn't true.

[ASprinkle]

I do not understand the necessity of the large YYYY at the top of the rules acknowledgement. This would become another item that would require updating over time. I would like a better understanding of why it's there before suggesting it's removal. Also, no need to state "ePermit Rules". If we want an intro make it concise saying the permit holder must be present and that the permit cannot be stored on a mobile device and must be printed to be valid. Or just add those things to the Rules list. It would be good for there to be only 1 header, so people don't get confused about rules for different things.

[JaneZC]

@ASprinkle Hi Amber! The above was more of a mockup on the page ... stay tuned! I am working on getting a more final version of the actual content. Perhaps we can discuss briefly after the standup.

[sadlerw]

final version: - see staging /arp/applications

[bryanmcfadden]

Pending Melissa's input... Updated flow chart: user_task_flow.pdf

[npage123]

@ASprinkle @tram @MelissaBraxton - Thoughts on adding an icon to bring a little more focus to the "Rules and Guidelines" title? Here are a couple options.

[JaneZC]

ASprinkle The rules for ARP are on staging here - https://forest-service-trees-staging.app.cloud.gov/christmas-trees/forests/arp/applications#rules . The year has been removed, per our conversation on Friday.

Would it be easier to edit if I provide a document to edit? Or, should folks just post content changes directly to the story? Bryan and I will also touch base with the ARP folks again to see if they have any remaining changes.

[npage123]

We discussed and are going with the bullet points icon. Please let us know if that doesnt’ work. bullet-points-icon.svg.zip

[ASprinkle]

Wow, this looks great! I am sure the ARNF will appreciate the organization and consice representation of their Christmas tree cutting rules! @JaneZC content edit: under Christmas tree cutting, second bullet, specify height: "You must leave a stump height of 6 inches or less." third bullet, swap "a" for "the": "only cut trees within the National Forest boundary"

Are the dates specified in the rules page connected to the dates on the info page? Are they easily updated through the same mechanism as the admin changes to dates page? or is it different? Do we need a story for this?

Under the canyon Lakes Ranger District: The last sentence of the intro paragraph - let's make sure to have ARNF folks notice this, since cutting is allowed in that other site that they didn't want to advertise online. Last bullet - make it the same language as the last bullet in the Elk Creek cutting area list.

Great work!

[sadlerw]

To answer the question as to if they are connected @ASprinkle - yes! the {{sulphurDate}} and other tags in the markdown with the cutting area names in them are handling that.

I've made all the changes above and will let you know when they show up on staging.