Update context for external links and update some of the privacy and security language #329
Conversation
|
At least one link is invalid. Please check the output of the tests in the checks below. For more information, see the wiki page on automated tests. |
| @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ A flexible vision is critical. We use data and direct conversations with and inv | |||
|
|
|||
| ### We coach advocates | |||
|
|
|||
| To better serve the public, we share practices that we've proven work. We publish living documentation of our [methods](https://methods.18f.gov/) and [approaches]({{site.baseurl}}/our-approach/) so others across government and beyond can benefit. | |||
| To better serve the public, we share practices that we've proven work. We publish living documentation of our [design methods](https://methods.18f.gov/) and [UX approaches]({{site.baseurl}}/our-approach/) so others across government and beyond can benefit. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@MelissaBraxton thoughts on referencing the Methods site as "design methods?" I think this is an improvement to "methods" but would it be clearer to say something signaling going to the 18F Methods site?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmmm... I think we should keep it as 18F Methods, until we get a strong direction telling us otherwise, likely following the methods/ux guide visioning work we recently added to the backlog. They are design methods, but there are also methods in there commonly used by all 18F teams, and not all the methods are research methods. Also, I think many other resources currently refer to the site as "18F Methods," not just the UX guide.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thats likely true. Good point. @MelissaBraxton
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@MelissaBraxton I wonder if there is a way to qualify them though, while they are beyond design or research methods, they are not inclusive of our engineering practices or our agile practices. So I think that putting it just methods suggests that it is more inclusive of all of our practices.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the context of the UX guide, would visitors be confused that "methods" was not inclusive of engineering practices?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's also worth noting that on the 18f website we refer to it as "Design methods"
_pages/research/bias.md
Outdated
| @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ All research is subject to bias, whether in our choice of who participates, whic | |||
| - Refrain from asking close-ended questions | |||
| - Practice interviewing beforehand | |||
| - Periodically echo what you’ve heard during the interview back to interviewees (“Just to be sure I heard you correctly, you said…”) | |||
| - Conduct [post-interview debriefs](https://methods.18f.gov/interview-debrief/) | |||
| - Conduct [post-interview debriefs as described on the 18F methods](https://methods.18f.gov/interview-debrief/) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@MelissaBraxton referencing my comment above, to me this seems like a clearer way to indicate what to expect when clicking the link
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that's good. But is it "in the 18F Methods...", or "on the 18F Methods site" ? 🤔
|
@lauraGgit my only note about this issue is that I believe our practice is to write 18F with a capitol F. Sometimes in the updates it is written as 18f. |
| @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ All 18F teams do design research. [Design involves continuous decision making]({ | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| ## A team activity | |||
| Because a collaborative approach [increases the team’s overall empathy and efficiency](https://18f.gsa.gov/2016/08/16/what-happens-when-the-whole-team-joins-user-interviews/), research is best done as a team activity. This means the entire team, including your agency partners, shares responsibility for: | |||
| Because a collaborative approach increases the team’s overall empathy and efficiency, research is best done as a team activity. See our [18f blog on the impact of whole team collaboration on user research](https://18f.gsa.gov/2016/08/16/what-happens-when-the-whole-team-joins-user-interviews/). This means the entire team, including your agency partners, shares responsibility for: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This feels disjointed to me in a way that the original does not. The original provides the link in full context without adding content, so if users want more information about the claim that collaboration increases empathy and efficiency, they know they can click through for that evidence. The new way adds a sentence whose sole purpose is to declare that a link exists.
That said, the new one provides the context that the link leaves the UX Guide. But we have some unanswered questions about that:
- Do we want to identify external links with words, or something like an icon
?
- What constitutes an "external" link? Are other 18F sites external? (You could argue that everything 18F publishes might be considered "internal" to all other 18F publications, since it's still one organizational voice.)
- Maybe the question of internal or external is one of who is "speaking" in the linked material? If 18F is speaking, it's internal; otherwise, it's external and we should identify the speaker in the context of the link? (I really like that part of this change.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can look to the GSA IT requirements re: defining what is/is not an external link.
"Any link that is not a federal .gov or .mil website is considered an external link."
However, it's also a good practice to warn folks when a link is going to take them to a new page, even if it's on another .gov site. For example, you can see on this USWDS page re: accessibility, all links have the icon, even if they're pointing to other places in digital.gov.
From the external; links section of the website requirements here, it says "Agencies must clearly identify external links from their websites. Agency websites must clearly state that the content of external links to non-federal agency websites is not endorsed by the federal government and is not subject to federal information quality, privacy, security, and related guidelines." We still need to figure out how we want to do this. After a cursory look at digital gov, I'm not seeing any examples of how/where they point to this or a similar statement...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@MelissaBraxton +1 to adding the icon to anytime a link takes you to a different website.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@claireb-gsa can you document here your suggestion from standup on how we move forward with handling external links?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I was suggesting that we follow the approach of GSA's site's policy - https://www.gsa.gov/website-information/website-policies#linking
- applying the icon to any link that leaves GSA (I think we could say leaves 18F - it may make sense to not use it if we link guide to guide, despite them being different sub-sites) - so that would include.gov and .mil if it's not GSA
This I think is consistent with USWDS.
One thing to add - in the USWDS guidance it talks about providing context for the link: https://designsystem.digital.gov/components/link/#what-you-should-do
We're not very consistent in the format of the references - some specify authors but not source, others mention the source, others just a title. If we create a consistent pattern of mentioning where the resources live, it might help with connecting the icon to that leaving, and provide helpful context.
|
Pushed a commit to make some capitalization changes for consistency and accuracy:
|
|
@bpdesigns / @MelissaBraxton / @mgwalker updated the merge conflicts and should be ready for review again. |
|
Thanks @lauraGgit! Just two quick changes requested. |
|
@bpdesigns not quite seeing your changes - can you please provide the links to the comments so that I can address them promptly? |
|
@lauraGgit NVM! Possibly I was looking at an earlier commit before. Not quite sure but all looks good now. |
Addresses #297