Update links to WCAG criteria to make them clearer

[calvin-lau-sig7]

What

Changes identified unclear links on all WCAG-related links on the Design System.

This was done as a batch job to address about 40 flagged links in the link text audit, but these changes have not been drafted or approved there.

Full review of the changes in this PR is needed before publish.

What we've done

All instances of link text to WCAG 2.2 criteria are clearly identified as WCAG 2.2 criteria, with SC number and name

On the top-of-page WAG 2.2 call-outs, we've removed "users can successfully" at the end of the lead-in line into the anchor links.

From:
To [use component/pattern] and meet the new Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 criteria, make sure that users can successfully:

To:
To [use component/pattern] and meet the new Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 criteria, make sure that:

As a result, we've edited all the anchor links to be more descriptive within the link text, instead of relying on the lead-in sentence.

Why

This more clearly communicates what the link is and where it goes to. Part of #4267.

[netlify]

✅ You can preview this change here:

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	eee1d68
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/govuk-design-system-preview/deploys/67449c2c766bc300085a7088
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-4313--govuk-design-system-preview.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[owenatgov]

These are looking good. IMO ideally the callout links would also include the 'make sure that' from the lead-in paragraph to make it as clear as possible but I think that might tip this over into make the link too wordy and the experience bad for everyone else.

Question for you @calvin-lau-sig7: Do you think that instances of components need a 'component' suffix? For example the second callout link for back links is now 'users can interact with Back links' and I wonder if it should be 'users can interact with Back link components'. I'm not 100% about that as feedback because the user has the context of the page they're on so interested in your thoughts here.

[calvin-lau-sig7]

Question for you @calvin-lau-sig7: Do you think that instances of components need a 'component' suffix? For example the second callout link for back links is now 'users can interact with Back links' and I wonder if it should be 'users can interact with Back link components'. I'm not 100% about that as feedback because the user has the context of the page they're on so interested in your thoughts here.

Yeah, I better add the "component/pattern" words in...
I've got a distinction in my head between the component itself, and the page control – like the "Back links component" is the code that generates individual "back links" throughout a service.

But seeing as we're taking the wordy approach as standard, it makes sense for us to go use the wordy version everywhere it makes sense to.

I'll edit the PR...

[calvin-lau-sig7]

@selfthinker As mentioned in standup, here's a few things I wanted to mention for your awareness.

I'm looking to make these widespread edits:

• all links to WCAG 2.2 criteria now take a long form, formatted as "WCAG 2.2 success criterion 3.3.7 Redundant entry" or "WCAG 2.2 success criterion 3.3.7 Redundant entry, level AA"
• instances of WCAG 2.1 changed to WCAG 2.2, and update URLS from /WCAG21/ to /WCAG22/

The style format for the success criterion is my best interpretation of following the GOV.UK style guide – alas WCAG's style for success criterion is inconsistent across their website.

I'm open to any other comments you have on these changes as well!

[calvin-lau-sig7]

IMO ideally the callout links would also include the 'make sure that' from the lead-in paragraph to make it as clear as possible but I think that might tip this over into make the link too wordy and the experience bad for everyone else.

@owenatgov Looking at this again, this might be a good move... let me have a think 🤔

[calvin-lau-sig7]

I've taken in @owenatgov's suggestion to move the "make sure that" wording into the links, as I've agreed that it'll make the link text much clearer as messages. I've made the edits as a new commit and will verify it all looks good in preview tomorrow.

We'll need to review these in PR before push. cc @selfthinker

[owenatgov]

Content is looking SHARP. This is all but approved. I'll say my usual commit history thing. Happy to chat through that more.