The Requirements for WCAG 3.0 document is the next phase in the development of the next major upgrade to accessibility guidelines that will be the successor to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2 series. The Silver Task Force of the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group and the W3C Silver Community group have partnered to incubate the needs, requirements, and structure for the new accessibility guidance. To date, the group has:
Researched accessibility guidance needs
Developed problem statements and opportunities to improve accessibility guidance
Received input from industry leaders for directions to proceed
Drafted these high-level requirements for the next phase of the project, the prototyping and public input.
Status of This Document
This section describes the status of this
document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede
this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision
of this technical report can be found in the
W3C technical reports index at
https://www.w3.org/TR/.
This is a First Public Working Draft of Requirements for WCAG 3.0 by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group, with primary development in the Silver Task Force and Silver Community Group. It is published alongside and in support of the First Public Working Draft of W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0. These requirements define goals and approaches for WCAG 3 to have a different scope, structure, and conformance model from WCAG 2. These requirements will be updated periodically as experience grows with WCAG 3, in order to define clear goals that remain achievable.
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). The Working Group requests comments on this draft be sent by 26 February 2021. In-progress updates to the guidelines can be viewed in the public editors' draft.
GitHub Issues are preferred for
discussion of this specification.
Publication as a First Public Working Draft does not imply endorsement
by the W3C Membership.
This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced
or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this
document as other than work in progress.
This document was produced by a group
operating under the
1 August 2017 W3C Patent
Policy.
The group does not expect this document to become a W3C Recommendation.
W3C maintains a
public list of any patent disclosures
made in connection with the deliverables of
the group; that page also includes
instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual
knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains
Essential Claim(s)
must disclose the information in accordance with
section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.
People with disabilities can face problems using online content and applications. Disabilities can be permanent, temporary, or recurring limitations.
We need guidelines to:
identify these barriers encountered by people with disabilities.
explain how to solve the problems they pose.
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 were designed to be technology neutral, and has stayed relevant for over 10 years. The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 has been implemented in the open source authoring tool communities (chiefly Wordpress and Drupal) with little known uptake in commercial authoring tools. UAAG 2.0 offers useful guidance to user agent developers and has been implemented on an individual success criterion basis. There is no known user agent that has implemented all of UAAG 2.0.
Ensure that requirements may be applied across technologies
Ensure that the conformance requirements are clear
Design deliverables with ease of use in mind
Write to a more diverse audience
Clearly identify who benefits from accessible content
Ensure that the revision is "backwards and forward compatible"
WCAG 3.0 wishes to advance the WCAG 2.0 Requirements of:
applied across technologies
clear conformance
ease of use
diverse audience
identify who benefits
WCAG 3.0 does not want to advance the WCAG 2.0 requirement: "Ensure that the revision is 'backwards and forward compatible'" . The intention is to include WCAG 2.x content, but migrate it to a different structure and conformance model.
The WCAG 2.1 Requirements are very specific to WCAG 2.1 and will not be advanced by WCAG 3.0. WCAG 3.0 plans to migrate the content of WCAG 2.1 to WCAG 3.0, but the WCAG 2.1 Requirements document referred to structural requirements which are specific to WCAG 2.x.
The WCAG 2.1 Requirements are:
Define a clear conformance model for WCAG 2.1/dot.x releases
Ensure the conformance structure utilizes the WCAG 2.0 A / AA / AAA model
1.2 WCAG 3.0 Scope
WCAG 3.0 will have a broader scope than WCAG 2.0 and 2.1. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are scoped to Web and to Content. WCAG 3.0 is being designed to be able to include:
Disability Needs: An improved measurement and conformance structure that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes particular attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the true/false statement success criteria of WCAG 2.x.
Emerging Technologies: Flexibility to include emerging technologies, such as augmented/virtual reality(AR/VR/XR) and voice assistants
Support for the Technologies that Impact Accessibility: Advice for all levels of the accessibility technology stack who wish to support the WCAG 3.0 core Guidelines including:
digital content, including guidance currently addressed by WCAG 2.x
authoring tools, such as content management systems
user agents, such as browsers and media players
assistive technologies, such as screen readers, screen magnifiers, and assistants for memory, organization, or simplification
software and web applications, including mobile apps
operating systems and other platforms who may want advice for features to better support people with disabilities
The current project design does not intend to write separate specifications or normative requirements for the technology stack beyond digital content. The goal is to provide information that technology venders can choose to use to improve the accessibility of their products to support the guidelines.
1.3 Silver Task Force Research
Editor's note
Introductory text about the research efforts undertaken, with pointers to methodology and results
The research done in 2017-2018 by the Silver Task Force, the Silver Community Group, and the research partners was used to identify the key problem statements related to the current accessibility guidelines (WCAG 2.x, ATAG 2.0 and UAAG 2.0). See the Silver Research Summary slides for more detailed information. These problem statements were used to identify the opportunities for WCAG 3.0 to address that will improve accessibility guidance.
During the year of WCAG 3.0 research, a recurring theme was the popularity and quality of the guidance in WCAG 2.0. Most of the opportunities identified in the research were improvements in the structure and presentation accessibility guidance to improve usability, to support more disability needs, and to improve maintenance.
This document has two sections: a Design Principles section and a Requirements section. Requirements need to be measured or clearly demonstrated. They are used at the W3C phase of Candidate Recommendation, where the Candidate Recommendation Transition Request reports that the requirements were met. Design Principles are important statements that are less measurable, but are used to guide, shape and steer decision-making during the development process of WCAG 3.0. Both are essential in guiding the development of the WCAG 3.0 project.
2. Opportunities for WCAG 3.0
The Problem Statements describe areas identified during the WCAG 3.0 research in 2017-2018 that can be addressed in the new guidelines. Each problem statement also has an opportunity section that is the basis for the WCAG 3.0 Requirements.
2.1 Usability
Readable: When guidelines are easier to read and understand, users – especially people in the development cycle who are less technical – are more likely to implement accessibility. When all audiences are considered in the language and terminology used in the guidelines, the likelihood increases that they will:
reach a larger audience
be better understood
be easier to translate
be interpreted as easier to implement
On-ramp for Beginners: When beginning users can develop understanding and mastery of the accessibility guidance, this leads to faster and greater acceptance of accessibility. This also creates the opportunity to convince developers and project managers to include accessibility at the beginning of a project instead of the end.
Current and Future Technology Oriented: Eliminating underlying assumptions and structure that are oriented toward the historic static web and improving guidance for modern web applications can increase acceptance by developers and provide greater accessibility of web and native applications.
Advocacy Tool: Usability oriented toward a broad audience for WCAG 3.0 can help improve the general advocacy of digital accessibility. Improving the reach of WCAG 3.0 can help improve the awareness of accessibility considerations. Compelling information that is contextually relevant to the standards may also aid in convincing audiences of any type.
2.2 Conformance Model
There are several areas for exploration in how conformance can work. These opportunities may or may not be incorporated. Then need to work together, and that interplay will be governed by the design principles
Measurable Guidance: Certain accessibility guidance is quite clear and measurable. Others, far less so. There are needs of people with disabilities, especially cognitive and low vision disabilities that are not well served by guidance that can only be measured by pass/fail statement. Multiple means of measurement, in addition to pass/fail statements, allow inclusion of more accessibility guidance.
Task-Based Assessment: Moving away from strictly web pages and web sites as a collection of web pages, WCAG 3.0 could set the scope of conformance as a comprehensive set of tasks as defined by the author of the site or application. A properly marked up button doesn't help anything if the user can't complete the task at hand. Task-based assessment allows flexibility for conformance of complex applications that are not conducive to component/tag assessment or full-page assessment.
Accessibility Supported: As the technologies evolve, the interoperability of content, user agents, and assistive technology will continue to blur. Interoperability may be affected by any number of factors outside of the control of the author and publisher of digital content. WCAG 3.0 can include advice to user agents and assistive technology developers. Authors are not responsible for interoperability problems beyond a reasonable effort.
2.3 Maintenance
Flexibility: A flexible structure enables greater scaling of new methods to meet guidelines. It also allows for the expiration of outdated methods to meet guidelines. A flexible process of updating methods enables the overall guidance to keep pace with technology. Flexible participation – particularly of people with disabilities – empowers a community and enables more inclusive insights.
Scaling: We intend WCAG 3.0 to apply to multiple contexts and multiple use cases. WCAG 3.0 intends to be iterative, future-friendly, and user-centric.
Evolving Technology: WCAG 3.0 needs a flexible design that can be updated as new technologies emerge, assistive technologies improve, and changing technologies produce new barriers for people with disabilities. Accessibility guidance and all supporting documentation should anticipate common scenarios like new technology and the introduction of new modalities like surface reaction and ultrahaptics. As content technology evolves, it must be re-evaluated against assistive technology for compatibility. Likewise, as assistive technology evolves or emerges, it must be evaluated against the backward compatibility of various content technology.
Governance: Utilize tools that allow interested parties to predict when issues important to them are being discussed. Maintain a backlog that reflects issues along with their status.
3. Design Principles
The WCAG 3.0 Design Principles are based on the requirements of WCAG 2.0 and build on those requirements to meet needs identified in the WCAG 3.0 research.
Accessibility guidelines should:
Support the needs of a wide range of people with disabilities and recognize that people have individual and multiple needs.
Support a measurement and conformance structure that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes particular attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the true/false statement success criteria of WCAG 2.x.
Be flexible enough to support the needs of people with disabilities and keep up with emerging technologies. The information structure allows guidance to be added or removed.
Be accessible and conform to the Guidelines. Note: This design principle will move to the Requirements section once the Conformance section is completed and we determine a specific measurement of compliance.
Be written in plain language, as easy as possible to understand. We need a definition of plain language that includes the ease of translation. Ideally, it will be a broadly accepted definition internationally.
Improve the ability to support automated testing where appropriate and provide a procedure for repeatable tests when manual testing is appropriate.
The creation process for the guidelines should:
Actively recruit a diverse range of people with disabilities in recognition of the importance of their contributions to accessibility standards and solutions. Review and monitor whether people are included. Continually evaluate inclusive features of available tooling and procedures.
Facilitate global participation and feedback.
Be data-informed and evidence-based where possible. We recognize that research and evidence are influenced by the number of people with a particular disability, by the size of the body of research, and by the difficulty in capturing data regarding some disabilities or combination of disabilities. The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible to ensure that the needs of all people with disabilities are prioritized, including needs that differ from the majority. In situations where there is no evidence or research, valid data-gathering methods should be used to obtain and evaluate information from advocacy groups, people with lived experience and other subject matter experts.
Be written so the Guideline content is usable in adaptable and customizable ways. For example, WCAG 3.0 content is available to be extracted by users to adapt to itheir needs.
4. Requirements
Previous W3C Accessibility Guidelines described how to make web pages accessible to people with disabilities. These guidelines provided a flexible framework that has kept the guidelines relevant for 10 years. Changing technology and changing needs of people with disabilities has shown areas where they could be improved. The requirements are drawn from the research performed by WCAG 3.0 to improve the guidelines, and the suggestions from the Silver Design Sprint.
The WCAG 3.0 Requirements are high level and will be expanded and refined as Silver members move through the prototyping process.
4.1 Multiple ways to measure
All WCAG 3.0 guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included.
4.2 Flexible maintenance and extensibility
Create a maintenance and extensibility model for guidelines that can better meet the needs of people with disabilities using emerging technologies and interactions. The process of developing the guidance includes experts in the technology.
4.3 Multiple ways to display
Make the guidelines available in different accessible and usable ways or formats so the guidance can be customized by and for different audiences.
4.4 Technology Neutral
Guidance should be expressed in generic terms so that they may apply to more than one platform or technology. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if specific technical advice doesn't yet exist.
4.5 Readability/Usability
The core guidelines are understandable by a non-technical audience. Text and presentation are usable and understandable through the use of plain language, structure, and design.
4.6 Regulatory Environment
The Guidelines provide broad support, including
Structure, methodology, and content that facilitates adoption into law, regulation, or policy, and
clear intent and transparency as to purpose and goals, to assist when there are questions or controversy.
4.7 Motivation
The Guidelines motivate organizations to go beyond minimal accessibility requirements by providing a scoring system that rewards organizations which demonstrate a greater effort to improve accessibility.
4.8 Scope
The guidelines provide guidance for people and organizations that produce digital assets and technology of varying size and complexity. This includes large, dynamic, and complex websites. Our intent is to provide guidance for a diverse group of stakeholders including content creators, browsers, authoring tools, assistive technologies, and more.
A. Change Log
A.1 Changes Prior to First Public Working Draft
Moved the Opportunity for Evolving Technologies to Maintenance; added new opportunity for Flexibility in the Conformance section; and minor grammar corrections. (9 July 2018)
Added headings to individual requirements (25 June 2018)
Added section on Comparison to WCAG 2.x (25 June 2018)
Changed Problem Statements to Opportunities based on AGWG feedback and group discussion (25 June 2018)
Moved Design Principle #10 to #6. (25 June 2018)
Changed wording of Multiple Ways to Measure (25 June 2018)
Added editor notes for Technology Neutral and Testability (25 June 2018)
Added statement to Problem Statements about ATAG & UAAG research. Minor grammar fixes. (3 June 2018)
Add explanatory sentence to Problem Statement intro paragraph about positive feedback on WCAG guidance and emphasis on structural and presentation improvements.
Fix typo, change "situational disabilities" to "situational limitations"
Add short sentences on the time line for updating the Requirements document based on meeting of Cooper, Lauriat and Spellman of 23 March 2018.
Reorder the sections so that the background is first, followed by Design Principles, then Requirements
Clarify the broader definition of "disabilities" based on input from public comments and group discussion. The definition sentence in the Introduction paragraph is a proposal for group discussion.
Change "future" to "unanticipated" in Requirements #2 and add subsequent sentence.
Change the Requirements Intro paragraph to remove the specific sentence on conformance and pass/fail tests and give greater context on the source of the Requirements.
Changes Prior to Second Version of Requirements
New requirements for Readability, Regulatory Environment, Motivation, and Scope.
Added paragraph explaining the differences between Design Principles and Requirements as a result of requests from the AGWG face-to-face meeting of 11 and 12 March 2019.
Added new Design Principles and Requirements and changed wording of existing Design Principles and Requirements based on feedback from AGWG in Q1 and Q2 2019
Added a new Scope section to the Introduction that clarifies that WCAG 3.0 plans to address Authoring Tools, User agents and Apps. (26 April 2019)
Reworded Technology Neutral to bring it more in line with the original WCAG 2.0 Requirements wording. (26 April 2019)
changed Design Principle 9 to more clearly show that there will not be a hierarchy of disabilities and that when there is no research, how we will address that.
B. Acknowledgements
B.1 Participants of the Silver Task Force and Silver Community Group who contributed to this document
Jake Abma
Charles Adams
Jennison Asuncion
Bruce Bailey
Frederick Boland
Omar Bonilla
Alice Boxhall
Shari Butler
Sheri Byrne-Haber
Jennifer Chadwick
Wendy Chisholm
Victoria Clark
Kelsey Collister
Joshue O Connor
Michael Cooper
Michael Crabb
Joe Cronin
Kim Dirks
David Fazio
Wilco Fiers
Detlev Fischer
John Foliot
Luis Garcia
Lucy Greco
Charles Hall
Ryan Hemphill
Katharina Herzog
Scott Hollier
Angela Hooker
Sarah Horton
Matthew King
Andrew Kirkpatrick
John Kirkwood
Peter Korn
JaEun Ku
Shawn Lauriat
Michellanne Li
Todd Libby
Imelda Llanos
Thomas Logan
Eleanor Loiacono
Chris Loiselle
David MacDonald
John McNabb
Peter McNally
Jan McSorley
Rachael Montgomery
Mary Jo Mueller
Lyn Muldrow
Charles Nevile
Christy Owens
Kimberly Patch
Christian Perera
Melanie Philipp
Jill Power
Sarah Pulis
John Rochford
Abi Roper
Cybele Sack
Shrirang Sahasrabudhe
Janina Sajka
Karen Schriver
Stein Erik Skotkjerra
David Sloan
Andrew Somers
Jeanne Spellman
Ruth Spina
Francis Storr
David Swallow
Mark Tanner
Suzanne Taylor
Makoto Ueki
sweta wakodkar
Takayuki Watanabe
Léonie Watson
Thomas Westin
B.2 Participants of the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group who reviewed this document
Jake Abma
Shadi Abou-Zahra
Chuck Adams
Amani Ali
Jim Allan
Paul Adam
Jon Avila
Bruce Bailey
Garenne Bigby
Judy Brewer
Shari Butler
Alastair Campbell
Laura Carlson
Pietro Cirrincione
Michael Cooper
Jennifer Delisi
Wayne Dick
Kim Dirks
Shwetank Dixit
Nicaise Dogbo
E.A. Draffan
Michael Elledge
David Fazio
Wilco Fiers
Detlev Fischer
John Foliot
Betsy Furler
Matt Garrish
Alistair Garrison
Michael Gower
Charles Hall
Katie Haritos-Shea
Andy Heath
Shawn Henry
Sarah Horton
Abi James
Marc Johlic
Andrew Kirkpatrick
John Kirkwood
Peter Korn
JaEun Ku
Patrick Lauke
Shawn Lauriat
Steve Lee
Chris Loiselle
Greg Lowney
David MacDonald
Chris McMeeking
Jan McSorley
Melina Möhnle
Rachael Montgomery
Mary Jo Mueller
Gundula Niemann
Brooks Newton
Caryn Pagel
Justine Pascalides
Kim Patch
Melanie Philipp
Ruoxi Ran
Stephen Repsher
John Rochford
Cybele Sack
Janina Sajka
Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum
Glenda Sims
Avneesh Singh
Andrew Somers
Jaeil Song
Jeanne Spellman
Makoto Ueki
Kathleen Wahlbin
Léonie Watson
B.3 Research Partners
These researchers selected a Silver research question, did the research, and graciously allowed us to use the results.
David Sloan and Sarah Horton, The Paciello Group, WCAG Success Criteria Usability Study
Scott Hollier et al, Curtin University, Internet of Things (IoT) Education: Implications for Students with Disabilities
Peter McNally, Bentley University, WCAG Use by UX Professionals
Dr. Michael Crabb, University of Dundee, Student research papers on Silver topics
Eleanor Loiacono, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Web Accessibility Perceptions (Student project from Worcester Polytechnic Institute)
B.4 Enabling funders
This publication has been funded in part with U.S. Federal funds from the Health and Human Services, National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), initially under contract number ED-OSE-10-C-0067 and now under contract number HHSP23301500054C. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.