Remove outdated reference links and make link text for references consistent

[MelissaBraxton]

Background
There's currently a lot of variability in how we contextualize linked references from the Method cards. Eg, sometimes we include the title and author, sometimes just the title; sometimes the title is in quotes, sometimes it's not. This issue covers settling on a style for linked text, and then implementing it across all the methods.

This work builds on the work in #568 and is could also be coupled with #579, since it also entails touching every link.

Currently, it appears neither our 18F or GSA content guides have an opinion on this styling, so we should defer ti what AP says :)

Acceptance criteria (we'll know we're done when…)

• How we contextualize links is consistent accross the Methods site
• Links recommended for removal in this sheet have been removed

Tasks

• Identify AP style guidance
• Run proposed style by the content guild for feedback
• Revise all references to match this guidance
• Remove links recommended for removal
• Consider suggesting an edit to the 18F content guide to clarify this style choice and maybe help other guides.
• PO review [if task involves content changes]

[MelissaBraxton]

We may need an additional task or issue to cover actually changing the text, esp. if #579 is already done.

[MelissaBraxton]

Re: above comment, I think we're good on issues to cover this work. No new issues are needed, and this issue can move forward irrespective of #579.

[claireb-gsa]

Proposing this format for references, and running by the content guild

[Title of item being referenced (no quotations, using sentence case)] – [en dash with spaces] [Name of publication (just title, not author names unless relevant)]

Examples:
Improving customer experience with digital personas – Digital.gov
Introduction to remote moderated usability testing, part 1: What and why – 18F Blog

[MelissaBraxton]

Waiting on feedback from content guild on proposed styling.

[claireb-gsa]

Content guild provided feedback on references - using em dash instead of en.

[Title of item being referenced (no quotations, using sentence case)] – [em dash with spaces] [Name of publication (just title, not author names unless relevant)]

Examples:
Improving customer experience with digital personas — Digital.gov
Introduction to remote moderated usability testing, part 1: What and why — 18F Blog

Outstanding question - where can this type of approach be documented? May be too specific for the Content guide.

[claireb-gsa]

All links have been updated. Details of changes noted in audit spreadsheet.

Potential next steps
There are several cards that could use deeper looks - particularly to ensure that the concepts are still valid.

• Design pattern library - should this connect to discussion of design systems?
• KJ method - seems very niche - could connect to or be replaced by affinity mapping
• Mental modeling - the content doesn't make the deliverable terribly clear
• Multivariate testing - A/B testing seems like a more commonly known version of this - maybe mention? could help with search
• Personas - replace with archetypes?
• Style tiles -could connect to other visual deliverables - references outdated and removed
• Task flow analysis - user flow? may need refocus, trying to explain what the deliverable is more clearly. Usability.gov is very confusing in how it describes actually doing this work - could use a lot of expansion

Possible additions

• Experience mapping
• service blueprinting