update link in past article to legacy vocabulary post-archive

content/blog/entries/cc-platform-toolkit-revamp-4/contents.lr

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ pub_date: 2020-03-04
 body:
 Phew, how is it possible that we're already in March? Between my last check-in and today, there was a lot of work and effort into revamping the [Platform Toolkit](https://creativecommons.org/platform/toolkit/).
 
-There were two rounds of user interviews: the first one was done looking only at the wireframe, focusing exclusively on usability and content. This provided a lot of important feedback to adjust the structure and move forward with the UI.  I tried my best to apply the design standards already mapped out by the [Vocabulary](https://github.com/creativecommons/vocabulary/) project, so that in the future this wouldn't stand out from other CC materials.
+There were two rounds of user interviews: the first one was done looking only at the wireframe, focusing exclusively on usability and content. This provided a lot of important feedback to adjust the structure and move forward with the UI.  I tried my best to apply the design standards already mapped out by the [Vocabulary Legacy](https://github.com/cc-archive/vocabulary-legacy/) project, so that in the future this wouldn't stand out from other CC materials.
 
 The second round of user interviews was done with a UI prototype, and was meant to take away some of my doubts regarding a few choices in this project. For instance, would it be best for the user to have the information in a single page, or would that be too much, and best to split in separate pages? There were pros and cons to both scenarios, but in the end we decided to stick with the single-page format because of a particular behavior: one of the ways users search for content is to ctrl+F and look for keywords. That would be drastically less effective with multiple pages.