The W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0 provide a wide range of recommendations for making web content more accessible to users with disabilities. Following these guidelines will address many of the needs of users with blindness, low vision and other vision impairments; deafness and hearing loss; limited movement and dexterity; speech disabilities; sensory disorders; cognitive and learning disabilities; and combinations of these. These guidelines address accessibility of web content on desktops, laptops, tablets, mobile devices, wearable devices, and other web of things devices. They address various types of web content including static content, interactive content, visual and auditory media, and virtual and augmented reality. The guidelines also address related web tools such as user agents (browsers and assistive technologies), content management systems, authoring tools, and testing tools.
Each guideline in this standard provides information on accessibility practices that address documented user needs of people with disabilities. Guidelines are supported by multiple outcomes to determine whether the need has been met. Guidelines are also supported by technology-specific methods to meet each outcome.
This specification is expected to be updated regularly to keep pace with changing technology by updating and adding methods, outcomes, and guidelines to address new needs as technologies evolve. For entities that make formal claims of conformance to these guidelines, several levels of conformance are available to address the diverse nature of digital content and the type of testing that is performed.
W3C Accessibility Guidelines 3.0 is a successor to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 [[WCAG22]] and previous versions, but does not deprecate these versions. WCAG 3.0 will incorporate content from and partially extend User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [[UAAG20]] and Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [[ATAG20]]. While there is a lot of overlap between WCAG 2.X and WCAG 3.0, WCAG 3.0 includes additional tests and different scoring mechanisms. As a result, WCAG 3.0 is not backwards compatible with WCAG 2.X. WCAG 3.0 does not supersede WCAG 2.2 and previous versions; rather, it is an alternative set of guidelines. Once these guidelines become a W3C Recommendation, the W3C will advise developers, content creators and policy makers to use WCAG 3.0 in order to maximize future applicability of accessibility efforts. However, content that conforms to earlier versions of WCAG continue to conform to those versions.
See WCAG 3 Introduction for an introduction and links to WCAG technical and educational material.
To comment, file an issue in the W3C silver GitHub repository. The Working Group requests that public comments be filed as new issues, one issue per discrete comment. It is free to create a GitHub account to file issues. If filing issues in GitHub is not feasible, send email to public-agwg-comments@w3.org (comment archive). In-progress updates to the guidelines can be viewed in the public editors' draft.
The current proposal for WCAG 3 is made up of different parts and sections, including:
These parts and sections are inter-related and are continually being refined and updated as more sections are developed. Content is in various states of maturity. The status is marked at the top of each section (see 1.2 Section status levels). Each publication of WCAG 3 will include updates to some, but not necessarily every part and section. This process will facilitate quarterly updates, which provide opportunities for public review and comment throughout the evolution of the guidelines. As a result, the document is a work in progress. Content will evolve and there may be changes to layout and style that are not yet reflected in all parts of the present release and will be reflected in future releases. The parts and sections updated in this release are:
The W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0 show ways to make web content accessible to people with disabilities. WCAG 3.0 is a newer standard than the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. You may use WCAG 2.2 or the new standard.
What’s new in WCAG 3.0?
This introduction provides a brief background to WCAG 3.0. Detailed information about the structure of the guidelines and inputs into their development is available in the Explainer for W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0. That document is recommended reading for anyone new to WCAG 3.
This specification presents a new model and guidelines to make web content and applications accessible to people with disabilities. The W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0 support a wide set of user needs, use new approaches to testing, and allow frequent maintenance of guidelines and related content to keep pace with accelerating technology change. WCAG 3.0 supports this evolution by focusing on users’ functional needs. These needs are then supported by outcomes and technology-specific methods to meet those needs.
Following these guidelines will make content more accessible to people with a wide range of disabilities, including accommodations for blindness, low vision and other vision impairments; deafness and hearing loss; limited movement and dexterity; speech disabilities; sensory disorders; cognitive and learning disabilities; and combinations of these. Following these guidelines will also often make content more usable to users in general as well as accessible to people with disabilities.
WCAG 3.0 is a successor to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 [[WCAG22]] and previous versions, but does not deprecate WCAG 2.X. It will also incorporate content from and partially extend User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [[UAAG20]] and Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [[ATAG20]]. These earlier versions provided a flexible model that kept them relevant for over 10 years. However, changing technology and changing needs of people with disabilities have led to the need for a new model to address content accessibility more comprehensively and flexibly.
There are many differences between WCAG 2.X and WCAG 3.0. Content that conforms to WCAG 2.2 A & AA is expected to meet most of the minimum conformance level of this new standard but, since WCAG 3.0 includes additional tests and different scoring mechanics, additional work will be needed to reach full conformance. Since the new standard will use a different conformance model, the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group expects that some organizations may wish to continue using WCAG 2.X, while others may wish to migrate to the new standard. For those that wish to migrate to the new standard, the Working Group will provide transition support materials, which may use mapping and other approaches to facilitate migration.
As part of the WCAG 3.0 drafting process each normative section of this document is given a status. This status is used to indicate how far along in the development this section is, how ready it is for experimental adoption, and what kind of feedback the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is looking for.
For more details, see the AG Process page.
Placeholder and exploratory sections may be distracting to reviewers who want to focus on more vetted cotent. These sections can be hidden with the following button:
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 [[WCAG20]] were designed to be technology neutral, and have stayed relevant for over 10 years. The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 [[ATAG20]] provide guidance for various types of software that assist people in writing accessible content. User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 2.0 [[UAAG20]] offers useful guidance to user agent developers and has been implemented on an individual success criterion basis.
These guidelines have normative guidance for content and helpful implementation advice for authoring tools, user agents, and assistive technologies.
For more details about differences from previous guidelines, see Appendix: Differences From WCAG 2.
This version of the guidelines includes an example method for ATAG (Author control of text alternatives) and UAAG ( Reflow of captions and other text in context). Future drafts of the guidelines will include additional examples of ATAG- and UAAG-related content.
The goal of WCAG 3.0 and supporting documents is to make digital products including web, ePub, PDF, applications, mobile apps, and other emerging technologies more accessible and usable to people with disabilities. It is the intention for WCAG 3.0 to meet this goal by supporting a wider set of user needs, using new approaches to testing, and allowing more frequent maintenance of guidelines to keep pace with accelerating technology change. The hope is that WCAG 3.0 will make it significantly easier for both beginners and experts to create accessible digital products that support the needs of people with disabilities.
Research and design work performed by the Silver Task Force identified key requirements needed to improve upon the existing WCAG 2.X structure. These requirements, presented in the Requirements for Silver document, shaped the guidelines that follow and should be taken into account when evaluating and updating the guidelines.
While the majority of guidelines are still to be written and we continue to explore additional ways of validating conformance, we seek wider public review on the approach presented here.
There are two types of content in this document:
Informative.
In addition to this section, the Guidelines, Testing, and Conformance sections in WCAG 3.0 provide normative content and define requirements that impact conformance claims. Introductory material, appendices, sections marked as non-normative
, diagrams, examples, and notes are informative (non-normative). Non-normative material provides advisory information to help interpret the guidelines but does not create requirements that impact a conformance claim.
The key words MAY, MUST, MUST NOT, NOT RECOMMENDED, RECOMMENDED, SHOULD, and SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as described in [[RFC2119]].
Outcomes are normative. The working group is looking for feedback on whether the following should be normative or informative: guidelines, methods, critical errors, and outcome ratings.
The following six guideline examples show different features of WCAG 3.0:
The individuals and organizations that use WCAG vary widely and include web designers and developers, policy makers, purchasing agents, teachers, and students. In order to meet the varying needs of this audience, several layers of guidance are provided including functional categories of disabilities, general guidelines, outcomes that can be tested, a rich collection of methods, resource links, and code samples.
The guidelines included in this draft have been selected to show different types of content:
These are early drafts of guidelines included to serve as initial examples. They are used to illustrate what WCAG 3.0 could look like and to test the process of writing content. These guideline drafts should not be considered as final content of WCAG 3.0. They are included to show how the structure would work. As this draft matures, numbering of individual guidelines will be removed to improve overall usability of the guidelines in response to public requests. WCAG 2.x success criteria will be migrated to this new structure before WCAG 3.0 moves to candidate recommendation.
As more content is developed, this section will be a list of guidelines with a unique short name, and the text of the requirement written in plain language. To see the overall plan for migrating content from WCAG 2.1 to WCAG 3.0, see the WCAG to Silver Outline Map.
Provide text alternative for non-text content.
Provides text alternatives for non-text content for user agents and assistive technologies. This allows users who are unable to perceive and / or understand the non-text content to determine its meaning.
We selected the Text Alternatives guideline to illustrate how WCAG 2.2 success criteria can be moved to WCAG 3.0 with minimal changes. Most of the material was directly copied from W3C sources such as WCAG 2.1, Web Accessibility Tutorials, and HTML 5.3 examples.
For this First Public Working Draft, we included HTML methods. This will be expanded in future drafts. We have also included a method, Author Control of Text Alternatives (ATAG), that demonstrates how requirements from the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 can be included as methods.
Use common clear words.
Exception:
Uses common words to reduce confusion and improve understanding.
We selected Use Clear Words to show that the new WCAG3 structure can include accessibility guidance that does not fit into the WCAG 2.x structure. In the research phase of this project, we identified user needs from the Cognitive Accessibility Task Force and the Low Vision Accessibility Task Force that could not be addressed by a true/false success criterion in WCAG 2.1. We wanted to select one of those user needs and include it in the first draft of WCAG3 to show that more complex user needs can be included and still be testable and scored.
Use Clear Words is a new guideline proposed by the Cognitive Accessibility Task Force (COGA) and includes research, documents and comments from COGA. The selection of user needs and the outcomes necessary to address them is aligned with the new COGA publication, Making content usable for people with cognitive and learning disabilities [coga-usable].
The clear words guideline was included to illustrate that the proposed WCAG 3.0 scoring and structure can be used in non-binary testing. Clear words guideline uses a rating scale with flexible units of measure. For example, testing could be done by a webpage, a paragraph, a section of instructions on an application, or other. A manual tester evaluates the paragraph, webpage, or section on a rating scale. While we do not know of any mainstream accessibility tool that measures common words, there are some working prototypes of tools developed outside the W3C. We are interested in feedback on testing this guideline and its scoring.
There are a number of exceptions to this guideline. We are interested in feedback where to put that information for ease of use.
This category of new guideline needs further development. It is included to show that it could work, not necessarily that this is the shape of the final guideline.
Provide captions and associated metadata for audio content.
Translates speech and non-speech audio into alternative formats (e.g. captions) so media can be understood when sound is unavailable or limited. User agents and APIs support the display and control of captions.
Conveys information about the sound in addition to the text of the sound (for example, sound source, duration, and direction) so users know the necessary information about the context of the sound in relation to the environment it is situated in.
This guideline demonstrates how the WCAG3 structure can be used with emerging technologies such as virtual reality, augmented reality and other immersive web technologies (XR). Research in this area is ongoing and we expect to complete more details in future drafts.
The Silver XR group has been working closely with other groups within the W3C as well as researchers in the area of captioning in immersive technologies. This is a rapidly developing field, and the recommendations listed are more exploratory. They are included as an example that WCAG3 can be used with emerging technologies. We hope that including this guideline will help inspire more research in this area.
Because this guideline was included to demonstrate emerging technology, there is little guidance included on traditional captions. Future drafts will also include more traditional caption guidance.
We want public feedback about whether open captions (burned in captions) should be considered as equivalent to closed captions. Closed captions are formed from text, which can be customized to meet user needs. For example, the text has the potential be repositioned, resized and presented in different color schemes. Open captions are burned in representations of text. As such, the text of open captions cannot be customized or adapted to other languages. Existing open captions can also conflict visually with any closed captions.
Use sections, headings, and sub-headings to organize content.
Organizes content into logical blocks with headings relevant to the subsequent content. This makes locating and navigating information easier and faster.
Uses visually distinct headings so sighted readers can determine the structure.
Provides semantic structure that conveys the hierarchy to help explore and navigate the content.
We included the structured content guideline as an example of an “easy” guideline that was well understood and addressed diverse disability needs. While WCAG2 addresses headings from the semantic needs of screenreader users, little has been done to directly address the needs of people with cognitive disabilities around headings. This guideline shows how a well-known area of accessibility can address more user needs of different groups of people with disabilities. The structured content guideline has multiple outcomes working together to cover the different aspects of accessibility needed for different categories of people with disabilities.
The structured content guideline began as a guideline on use of headings. Going through the content development process, we realized that it was a broader topic than simply headings, but there is little content developed beyond headings. Note that this guideline is used for prototyping, and is the most uneven in style of content. Additional outcomes and content will be added in future drafts to make this guideline more complete.
Structured content guideline also shows how several WCAG 2.1 success criteria can be re-combined and include AAA level success criteria such as 2.4.10 Section Headings.
Do you like the inclusion of broader needs for structured content than providing semantics for screenreader users? Do you think this should be a separate guideline, or do you like having multiple, testable outcomes supporting the guideline? Do you like the approach of merging WCAG2 success criteria with related user needs?
Provide sufficient contrast between foreground text and its background.
Provides adequate luminance contrast between background and text colors to make the text easy to read.
Visual Contrast is a migration from WCAG 2.1 with significant updates:
We propose changing the names of Contrast (Minimum)
and Contrast (Enhanced)
to Visual Contrast of Text
as a signal of a paradigm change from one about color to one about perception of light intensity
. The reason for this change is that the understanding of contrast has matured and the available research and body of knowledge has made breakthroughs in advancing the understanding of visual contrast
.
The proposed new guidance more accurately models current research in human visual perception of contrast and light intensity. The goal is to improve understanding of the functional needs of all users, and more effectively match the needs of those who face barriers accessing content. This new perception-based model is more context dependent than a strict light ratio measurement; results can, for example, vary with size of text and the darkness of the colors or background.
This model is more responsive to user needs and allows designers more choice in visual presentation. It does this by including multi-factor assessment tests which integrate contrast with inter-related elements of visual readability, such as font features. It includes tests to determine an upper limit of contrast, where elevated contrast may impact usability.
This outcome will eventually include a second rating approach based on the mean average APCA value for all text in a process and view based on a character count.
Provide features that help users avoid errors.
Provides instructions for inputs that have data entry requirements (for example, required, date, password) so users know how to provide valid information.
An additional outcome, Moderated form completion: Guides data entry, provides validation, and moderates form completion so users can avoid data entry errors, is under development. Details will be posted when available.
The Error Prevention guideline is a combination of WCAG 2.2 success criteria and additional requirements to address a broader range of functional needs.
For WCAG 2.2 success criteria, we focused on Success Criterion 3.3.2: Labels or Instructions (Level A), which states, "Labels or instructions are provided when content requires user input." We are still working on outcomes and methods to address Success Criterion 3.3.4 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data) (Level AA) and Success Criterion 3.3.6 Error Prevention (All) (Level AAA). We drew on WCAG 2.2 Techniques, Easy Checks, Web Accessibility Tutorials, and ACT Rules to create the outcomes, methods, examples, and tests, including (but not limited to):
To identify requirements beyond those specified in WCAG 2.2, we used user journeys to explore user needs related to different error-related scenarios, such as error on data entry and error on form submission (see Error Flows Inventory (Google Doc)). We then elaborated those scenarios to explore and define features that help prevent errors and help users recover from errors. We defined common user needs related to errors, such as "User needs instructions for inputs that have data entry requirements so they can enter data in the correct format." We used the DRAFT Functional Needs as a guide to define specific functional needs, such as "User needs instructions that display at the source of input so they can access the instructions while focused on the input" for functional needs related to limited vision, attention, and memory. We summarized functional needs in the Error User Needs Worksheet (Google Sheet) and used those as the basis for defining guidelines, outcomes, and methods.
The guidelines, outcomes, and methods related to errors are not complete. However, we would like your feedback on the structure and approach to defining accessibility guidelines with this user-first approach. Does the user journey approach make sense as a way of defining accessibility features? Are the methods clear in how they help achieve the outcome? Are the tests understandable and straightforward?
For this 3rd Public Working Draft, we include three methods to support the outcome of Input instructions provided for the Error Prevention guideline, which focuses on preventing errors from occurring. We are still working on additional outcomes and methods. We are also working on a guideline for Error Notification that will address outcomes and methods related to helping users recover from errors. We hope to include the remaining Error Prevention content and the complete Error Notification guideline in the 4th Public Working Draft, due out in December 2021.
WCAG 3.0 includes four types of tests which are evaluated pass/fail:
Tests can be applied to four different scopes:
This section is exploratory. Outstanding questions that need to be addressed include:
The model presented provides a structure for testing that can be built upon to better accommodate dynamic or very frequently updated content than WCAG 2.X. We are exploring additional approaches to testing using sampling and/or other alternatives for reaching conformance in situations where testing all content is not possible. We also plan to include a definition and concept for substantially conforming in order to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party content.
WCAG 3.0 tests outcomes. Outcomes are written as testable criteria that allow testers to determine if the content they are evaluating satisfies the criteria.
Testing outcomes use items, views, user processes, and the aggregate to define what is being tested.
Items are the smallest testable unit. They may be interactive components such as a drop down menu, a link, or a media player. They may also be units of content such as a word, a phrase, an icon, or an image.
Views include all content visually and programmatically available without a substantive change. Conceptually, views correspond to the definition of a web page
as used in WCAG 2.X, but are not restricted to content meeting that definition. For example, a view could be considered a "screen" in a mobile app.
User processes are a series of user actions, and the distinct interactive views and items that support the actions, where each action is required in order to complete an activity. A user process may include a subset of items in a view or a group of views.
Examples of a process include:
A process is comprised of one or more views or subsets of views. Only the part of the views that support the user process are included. in a test of user process.
The aggregate is the combination of items, views, and user processes that collectively comprise the site, set of web pages, web app, etc.
WCAG 3.0 includes four types of tests:
All tests results will pass or fail. The criteria used to evaluate whether the test pass differ for each type of test. The inter-rater reliability for an unconditional test is higher than the inter-rater reliability of a conditional test which higher than that of a procedural test. A conditional test includes an additional checkpoint that determines which unconditional and conditional tests will be used. As a result of these differences, the information tested change based on the test type to ensure each can be evaluated as pass or fail. For example, unconditional and conditional tests evaluate the results as they do in WCAG 2. Procedural tests may only evaluate a statement that the procedural occurred, instead of the results. Meeting an outcome may include one or more of these types of test.
Testing the outcomes using these tests might involve a combination of automated evaluation, semi-automated evaluation, and human evaluation.
Although content may satisfy all outcomes using unconditional and conditional tests, the content may not always be usable by people with a wide variety of disabilities. The conditional and procedural tests address this gap by evaluating more of the user experience.
We are looking for more appropriate terms to distinguish between types of tests and scope and welcome suggestions. Other terms suggested for 'unconditional' are 'quantitative', 'non-conditional', 'less-subjective', constant', 'definitive', 'pass/fail' or "fixed objective". Other terms suggested for 'conditional' are 'qualitative', 'qualified' and 'fixed subjective.' Other terms suggested for 'conventional' are 'convention based objective', 'use case', or 'contextual' Other terms suggested for 'procedural' are "process evaluation" and "process based subjective.'
We continue to test this approach and others for validity, reliability, sensitivity, adequacy, and complexity. Alternatives that we are exploring are noted as separate editor’s notes where applicable. We welcome suggestions on ways to improve the scoring to better meet these criteria.
Unconditional tests are tests where the results will not vary based on the tester or approach. Examples include testing whether something exists or against an unconditional value. Unconditional tests evaluate content, often against a unit or view, for accessibility.
Unconditional tests evaluate against a universal criterion that is true in all situations and requires no subjective evaluation.
Methods using unconditional tests include the baseline to test against. Most often this baseline is whether or not something is present. In the case of color contrast, this baseline is a number.
Unconditional tests may be automated or manual. Automated evaluation can be completed without human assistance. These tests allow for a larger scope to be tested but automated evaluation alone cannot determine accessibility. Over time, the number of accessibility tests that can be automated is increasing, but manual testing is still required to evaluate most methods at this time.
Conditional tests rely on informed qualitative evaluations based on a set of criteria. The test results may vary slightly between experienced testers. Examples include testing quality and applicability.
Methods using conditional tests include the criteria being tested and guidance on evaluating how well the content meets the criteria of the conditional test.
Conventional tests evaluate the results within a particular context. The tests are still unconditional or conditional tests but the context dictates:
Methods using conventional tests include the test criteria the organization would need to evaluate, parameters for success and failure, and, if it is a conditional test, guidance on evaluating how well the content meets the criteria of the conditional test.
Procedural tests evaluate whether a process was used to improve accessibility. Examples include usability and plain language testing. Procedural tests could include assistive technology testing, user-centered design methods, plain language testing, and both user and expert usability testing. Procedural testing often applies to the aggregate or user process. Methods would provide guidance for different procedures that are proven to improve accessibility and would test declarations about the procedural used rather than the results.
The requirements for what would be evaluated for procedural tests are to be determined.
Each outcome includes methods associated with different technologies. Each method contains tests and techniques for satisfying the outcome. The outcome is written so that testers can test the accessibility of new and emerging technologies that do not have related methods based solely on the outcome.
This section is exploratory.
Severity rating could contribute towards scoring and prioritization. This is a potential way to replace how A/AA/AAA levels represented severity by incorporating a mechanism to evaluate severity as a part of testing.
Outstanding questions that need to be addressed include:
Tests will include critical issues. Each test will have a category of severity, so some tests will be flagged as causing a critical issue. Examples of critical issues in tests are at Text Alternative Available and Translates Speech And Non-Speech Audio.
You might want to make a claim that your content or product meets the WCAG 3.0 outcomes. If it does meet the outcomes, we call this “conformance.” To conform to WCAG 3.0, your test results must show that your project is accessible.
If you want to make a conformance claim, you must use the process described in this document. Your content can conform to WCAG 3.0, even if you don’t want to make a claim. You can still use this process to test your project’s accessibility.
WCAG 3.0 will include a new conformance model in order to address a wider range of user needs, test a wider range of technologies and support new approaches to testing. There are several key goals for this new conformance model:
To do this, the conformance model prioritizes content needed to complete tasks while still testing the entire view for accessibility errors. This priority is reflected in the scoring system, which does not allow for errors along the paths needed to complete processes but allow for some accessibility errors outside process completion. This means that sites may conform at the lowest level (Bronze), while still containing a small amount of content that does not meet one or more guidelines, so long as that content doesn’t prevent people with disabilities from successfully using the site.
We seek feedback on whether this flexibility will be beneficial in encouraging content providers to meet conformance because it is more achievable or whether content providers are less likely to improve accessibility if they aren't required to. We also seek feedback on the conformance approach as a whole.
WCAG 3.0 defines three levels of conformance: bronze, silver, and gold.
Bronze is the minimum conformance level. Content that does not meet the requirements of the bronze level does not conform to WCAG 3.0. While there is a lot of overlap between WCAG 2.X and WCAG 3.0, WCAG 3 includes additional tests and different scoring mechanics. As a result, WCAG 3.0 is not backwards compatible with WCAG 2.X.
Silver is a higher conformance level.
Gold is the highest conformance level.
Web content publishers may include content provided by the users of their digital products. We refer to such content as "User Generated Content".
Examples of User Generated Content include:
User Generated Content is provided for publication by visitors where the content platform specifically welcomes and encourages it. User-generated content is content that is submitted through a user interface designed specifically for members of the public and customers. Use of the same user interface as an authoring tool for publication of content by agents of the publisher (such as employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers) acting on behalf of the publisher does not make that content User Generated Content. The purpose of the User Generated Content Conformance is to allow WCAG 3 outcomes and methods to require additional or different steps to improve the accessibility of User Generated Content.
An important part of WCAG Conformance is the specific guidance that is associated with individual WCAG 3 guidelines and outcomes. Not all WCAG 3 guidelines will have unique outcomes and testing for User Generated Content. Unless User Generated Content requirements are specified in a particular guideline, that guideline applies as written whether or not the content is User Generated.
We plan for a future Working Draft to include specific examples of guidelines with additional requirements for user generated content. One example would be 'alternative text'. The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) has specific guidance for providing a mechanism for alternative text. The ATAG 2.0 Guideline B.2.3 - "Assist authors with managing alternative content for non-text content" could be adapted to provide specific, guideline-related guidance for user generated alternative text.
The web content publisher should identify all locations of User Generated Content (such as commentary on hosted content, product descriptions for consumer to consumer for sale listings, and restaurant reviews) and perform standard accessibility evaluation analysis for each. If there are no accessibility issues, the User Generated Content is fully conforming.
If accessibility issues are identified, or if the website author wants to proactively address potential accessibility issues that might arise from User Generated Content, then all of the following must be indicated alongside the User Generated Content or in an Accessibility Statement published on the site or product that is linked from the view or page in a consistent location:
Editor's Note: Once the conformance approach is included, content that passes all tests will be considered fully conformant. It remains to be determined how to address User Generated Content that has accessibility issues; and to define what minimum thresholds might be acceptable. We expect WCAG 3 to provide this guidance within individual guidelines and outcomes and to support testing for conformance. The working group is looking at alternative requirements to apply to User Generated Content guideline by guideline, and is seeking feedback on what would serve as reasonable requirements on how to best support accessibility in User Generated Content with known (or anticipated) accessibility issues. The working group intends to more thoroughly address the contents and the location of an accessibility statement in a future draft.
For this first draft, the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has focused on the basic conformance model. For a next draft, we will explore how conforming alternative versions fit into the new conformance model.
For this first draft, the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has focused on the basic conformance model. For a next draft, we will explore how accessibility-supported fits into the new conformance model.
When evaluating the accessibility of content, WCAG 3.0 requires the outcomes apply to a specific scope. While the scope can be an all content within a digital product, it is usually one or more sub-sets of the whole. Reasons for this include:
WCAG 3.0 therefore defines two inter-related ways to scope content: views and processes. Evaluation is done on one or more complete views or processes, and conformance is determined on the basis of one or more complete views or processes.
Conformance is defined only for processes and views. However, a conformance claim may be made to cover one process and view, a series of processes and views, or multiple related processes and views. All unique steps in a process MUST be represented in the set of views. Views outside of the process MAY also be included in the scope.
The AG WG and Silver Task Force recognize that representative sampling is an important strategy that large and complex sites use to assess accessibility. While it is not addressed within this document at this time, our intent is to later address it within this document or in a separate document before the guidelines reach the Candidate Recommendation stage. We welcome your suggestions and feedback about the best way to incorporate representative sampling in WCAG 3.0.
In order for technology to conform to WCAG 3.0, the following conformance requirements apply:
Conformance claims are not required. Authors can conform to WCAG 3.0 without making a claim. The material below describes how to make a conformance claim if that option is chosen.
A conformance claim MUST include the following information:
W3C Accessibility Guidelines 3.0 at ???
On 12 August 2020, the following 10 views and 2 processes conform to WCAG 3.0 at a bronze level. Processes were selected because they are the most common activities on the site and include 4 unique views. The other 6 views are the most commonly used.
These were tested using Firefox and Chrome on a Windows platform. The assistive technology used included JAWS and Dragon.
Many of the terms defined here have common meanings. When terms appear with a link to the definition, the meaning is as formally defined here. When terms appear without a link to the definition, their meaning is not explicitly related to the formal definition here. These definitions are in progress and may evolve as the document evolves.
Evaluation conducted using software tools, typically evaluating code-level features and applying heuristics for other tests.
Automated testing is contrasted with other types of testing that involve human judgement or experience. Semi-automated evaluation allows machines to guide humans to areas that need inspection. The emerging field of testing conducted via machine learning is not included in this definition.
Satisfying all the requirements of the guidelines. Conformance is an important part of following the guidelines even when not making a formal Conformance Claim.
See Conformance.
To declare something outdated and in the process of being phased out, usually in favor of a specified replacement.
Deprecated documents are no longer recommended for use and may cease to exist in the future.
A statement that describes a specific gap in one’s ability, or a specific mismatch between ability and the designed environment or context.
High-level, plain-language content used to organize outcomes.
See Guidelines in the Explainer.
Evaluation conducted by a human, typically to apply human judgement to tests that cannot be fully automatically evaluated.
Human evaluation is contrasted with automated evaluation which is done entirely by machine, though it includes semi-automated evaluation which allows machines to guide humans to areas that need inspection. Human evaluation involves inspection of content features, by contrast with user testing which directly tests the experience of users with content.
Content provided for information purposes and not required for conformance.
Content required for conformance is referred to as normative
.
Detailed information, either technology-specific or technology-agnostic, on ways to meet the outcome as well as tests and scoring information.
See Methods in the Explainer.
Content whose instructions are required for conformance.
Content identified as informative
or non-normative
is never required for conformance.
Result of practices that reduce or eliminate barriers that people with disabilities experience.
See Outcomes.
A sequence of steps that need to be completed in order to accomplish an activity / task from end-to-end.
Evaluation conducted using machines to guide humans to areas that need inspection.
Semi-automated evaluation involves components of automated evaluation and human evaluation.
Mechanism to evaluate implementation of a method.
Tests can include true / false evaluation or various types of rating scales as appropriate for the guideline, outcome, or technology.
Technology-specific approach to follow a method.
Future work on the glossary will better define terms such as publisher, content author, etc.
The end goal a user has when starting a process through digital means.
Evaluation of content by observation of how users with specific functional needs are able to complete a process and how the content meets the relevant outcomes.
Outcomes are different from WCAG 2.X success criteria. Compared to success criteria, outcomes are written to be:
The design of outcomes allows more varied needs of people with disabilities than could have been included in WCAG 2.X.
Methods map approximately to WCAG 2.X Techniques documents.
| WCAG 2 | WCAG 3 |
|---|---|
| Success Criteria | Outcomes |
| Techniques | Methods |
| Understanding | How-to |