Editorial: Improve term definition links and a few term's capitalization consistency

[maryjom]

Created pull request #3038 to address some suggested editorial changes. None of the suggested changes change any verbiage, just consistency things and one formatting issue. Here's the list of what is suggested:

• Definition of "assistive technology": Example 6 formatting should continue to the end of the bulleted list.
• Use of "website", "web site", "web page", and "web pages" changed to "Web site", "Web page", and "Web pages" in a few places.
• Moved up two definition links to be on the first usage of the term within an SC
• Added several links to definitions in SCs and in definitions that used another defined term.

[maryjom]

@alastc Here's another issue with something I think can go to asynchronous approval. I found these things while working on definitions for WCAG2ICT.

[alastc]

Hi @maryjom,

As most of these affect 2.0/2.1, I think we'll need to treat the PR as an errata.

You had "input errors" as a definition for "error-prevention-all.html" and "error-prevention-legal-financial-data.html", but I don't think that's a defined term?

[maryjom]

@alastc Some of the changes are for new SC in 2.2 and new definitions as well. I could maybe pull those out into a separate PR so they can be incorporated. For example:

• changing "websites" to "Web sites" is in the new Accessible Authentication SC
• Changing "website" to "Web site" is in the new definition "Cognitive function test"

There is an existing definition for the term input error. The error prevention and error prevention (legal, financial, data) SCs both use that term but don't currently link to the definition.

[maryjom]

@alastc Seems that we should be able to improve the definition linkages in newer versions without calling out errata in WCAG 2.0 and/or 2.1. These aren't changes to clarify misunderstanding, but simply usability improvements IMO. They don't seem to be at a level of needing to call out an errata (e.g. capitalization change or changing "website" to "Web site", but maybe I don't understand the criteria for what constitutes an errata vs. simply an edit.

Another example is the visual treatment of the example list in the definition of "assistive technology", a WCAG 2.0 term. This issue was actually introduced post-2.0 when document formatting changes were introduced in WCAG 2.1 (see the AT definition in 2.1. Previously there was no visual formatting for blocks of text for examples. The correction in my pull request is fixing a visual formatting error.

[alastc]

HI @maryjom, if you can separate the 2.2 items I'll merge those as editorial.

Any changes to the published (Rec) normative specs needs to go through the errata process. It will be editorial and straightforward, but we'll need to get group approval. We'll try to get to that next month so it goes in with other errata (e.g. 4.1.1) and we can re-publish the older versions.

[maryjom]

@alastc I have created Pull Request #3060 to carve out the WCAG 2.2 changes. Will update the other PR to remove WCAG 2.2 changes and have that one focus on WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 changes.