Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 covers a wide range of recommendations for making Web content more accessible. Following these guidelines will make content more accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including accommodations for blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, and combinations of these, and some accommodation for learning disabilities and cognitive limitations; but will not address every user need for people with these disabilities. These guidelines address accessibility of web content on desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile devices. Following these guidelines will also often make Web content more usable to users in general.
WCAG 2.1 success criteria are written as testable statements that are not technology-specific. Guidance about satisfying the success criteria in specific technologies, as well as general information about interpreting the success criteria, is provided in separate documents. See Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview for an introduction and links to WCAG technical and educational material.
WCAG 2.1 extends Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [[!WCAG20]], which was published as a W3C Recommendation December 2008. Content that conforms to WCAG 2.1 also conforms to WCAG 2.0. The WG intends that for policies requiring conformance to WCAG 2.0, WCAG 2.1 can provide an alternate means of conformance. The publication of WCAG 2.1 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0. While WCAG 2.0 remains a W3C Recommendation, the W3C advises the use of WCAG 2.1 to maximize future applicability of accessibility efforts. The W3C also encourages use of the most current version of WCAG when developing or updating Web accessibility policies.
This is an Editors' Draft of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. WCAG 2.1 is a W3C Recommendation. This draft incorporates errata and are described in the change log. At some point these changes might be incorporated into a Edited or Amended Recommendation.
To comment, file an issue in the W3C WCAG GitHub repository. Although the proposed Success Criteria in this document reference issues tracking discussion, 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).
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 defines how to make Web content more accessible to people with disabilities. Accessibility involves a wide range of disabilities, including visual, auditory, physical, speech, cognitive, language, learning, and neurological disabilities. Although these guidelines cover a wide range of issues, they are not able to address the needs of people with all types, degrees, and combinations of disability. These guidelines also make Web content more usable by older individuals with changing abilities due to aging and often improve usability for users in general.
WCAG 2.1 is developed through the W3C process in cooperation with individuals and organizations around the world, with a goal of providing a shared standard for Web content accessibility that meets the needs of individuals, organizations, and governments internationally. WCAG 2.1 builds on WCAG 2.0 [[!WCAG20]], which in turn built on WCAG 1.0 [[WAI-WEBCONTENT]] and is designed to apply broadly to different Web technologies now and in the future, and to be testable with a combination of automated testing and human evaluation. For an introduction to WCAG, see the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview.
Significant challenges were encountered in defining additional criteria to address cognitive, language, and learning disabilities, including a short timeline for development as well as challenges in reaching consensus on testability, implementability, and international considerations of proposals. Work will carry on in this area in future versions of WCAG. We encourage authors to refer to our supplemental guidance on improving inclusion for people with disabilities, including learning and cognitive disabilities, people with low-vision, and more.
Web accessibility depends not only on accessible content but also on accessible Web browsers and other user agents. Authoring tools also have an important role in Web accessibility. For an overview of how these components of Web development and interaction work together, see:
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 overall principles, general guidelines, testable success criteria and a rich collection of sufficient techniques, advisory techniques, and documented common failures with examples, resource links and code.
Principles - At the top are four principles that provide the foundation for Web accessibility: perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust. See also Understanding the Four Principles of Accessibility.
Guidelines - Under the principles are guidelines. The 13 guidelines provide the basic goals that authors should work toward in order to make content more accessible to users with different disabilities. The guidelines are not testable, but provide the framework and overall objectives to help authors understand the success criteria and better implement the techniques.
Success Criteria - For each guideline, testable success criteria are provided to allow WCAG 2.1 to be used where requirements and conformance testing are necessary such as in design specification, purchasing, regulation, and contractual agreements. In order to meet the needs of different groups and different situations, three levels of conformance are defined: A (lowest), AA, and AAA (highest). Additional information on WCAG levels can be found in Understanding Levels of Conformance.
Sufficient and Advisory Techniques - For each of the guidelines and success criteria in the WCAG 2.1 document itself, the working group has also documented a wide variety of techniques. The techniques are informative and fall into two categories: those that are sufficient for meeting the success criteria and those that are advisory. The advisory techniques go beyond what is required by the individual success criteria and allow authors to better address the guidelines. Some advisory techniques address accessibility barriers that are not covered by the testable success criteria. Where common failures are known, these are also documented. See also Sufficient and Advisory Techniques in Understanding WCAG 2.1.
All of these layers of guidance (principles, guidelines, success criteria, and sufficient and advisory techniques) work together to provide guidance on how to make content more accessible. Authors are encouraged to view and apply all layers that they are able to, including the advisory techniques, in order to best address the needs of the widest possible range of users.
Note that even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas. Authors are encouraged to consider the full range of techniques, including the advisory techniques, as well as to seek relevant advice about current best practice to ensure that Web content is accessible, as far as possible, to this community. Metadata may assist users in finding content most suitable for their needs.
The WCAG 2.0 document is designed to meet the needs of those who need a stable, referenceable technical standard. Other documents, called supporting documents, are based on the WCAG 2.1 document and address other important purposes, including the ability to be updated to describe how WCAG would be applied with new technologies. Supporting documents include:
How to Meet WCAG 2.1 - A customizable quick reference to WCAG 2.1 that includes all of the guidelines, success criteria, and techniques for authors to use as they are developing and evaluating Web content. This includes content from WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1 and can be filtered in many ways to help authors focus on relevant content.
Understanding WCAG 2.1 - A guide to understanding and implementing WCAG 2.1. There is a short "Understanding" document for each guideline and success criterion in WCAG 2.1 as well as key topics.
Techniques for WCAG 2.1 - A collection of techniques and common failures, each in a separate document that includes a description, examples, code and tests.
The WCAG Documents - A diagram and description of how the technical documents are related and linked.
See Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview for a description of the WCAG 2.1 supporting material, including education resources related to WCAG 2. Additional resources covering topics such as the business case for Web accessibility, planning implementation to improve the accessibility of Web sites, and accessibility policies are listed in WAI Resources.
WCAG 2.1 meets a set of requirements for WCAG 2.1 which, in turn, inherit requirements from WCAG 2.0. Requirements structure the overall framework of guidelines and ensure backwards compatibility. The Working Group also used a less formal set of acceptance criteria for success criteria, to help ensure success criteria are similar in style and quality to those in WCAG 2.0. These requirements constrained what could be included in WCAG 2.1. This constraint was important to preserve its nature as a dot-release of WCAG 2.
WCAG 2.1 was initiated with the goal to improve accessibility guidance for three major groups: users with cognitive or learning disabilities, users with low vision, and users with disabilities on mobile devices. Many ways to meet these needs were proposed and evaluated, and a set of these were refined by the Working Group. Structural requirements inherited from WCAG 2.0, clarity and impact of proposals, and timeline led to the final set of success criteria included in this version. The Working Group considers that WCAG 2.1 incrementally advances web content accessibility guidance for all these areas, but underscores that not all user needs are met by these guidelines.
WCAG 2.1 builds on and is backwards compatible with WCAG 2.0, meaning web pages that conform to WCAG 2.1 also conform to WCAG 2.0. Authors that are required by policy to conform with WCAG 2.0 will be able to update content to WCAG 2.1 without losing conformance with WCAG 2.0. Authors following both sets of guidelines should be aware of the following differences:
WCAG 2.1 extends WCAG 2.0 by adding new success criteria, definitions to support them, guidelines to organize the additions, and a couple additions to the conformance section. This additive approach helps to make it clear that sites which conform to WCAG 2.1 also conform to WCAG 2.0, thereby meeting conformance obligations that are specific to WCAG 2.0. The Accessibility Guidelines Working Group recommends that sites adopt WCAG 2.1 as their new conformance target, even if formal obligations mention WCAG 2.0, to provide improved accessibility and to anticipate future policy changes.
The following Success Criteria are new in WCAG 2.1:
Many of these success criteria reference new terms that have also been added to the glossary and form part of the normative requirements of the success criteria.
In the Conformance section, a third note about page variants has been added to Full Pages, and an option for machine-readable metadata added to Optional Components of a Conformance Claim.
In order to avoid confusion for implementers for whom backwards compatibility to WCAG 2.0 is important, new success criteria in WCAG 2.1 have been appended to the end of the set of success criteria within their guideline. This avoids the need to change the section number of success criteria from WCAG 2.0, which would be caused by inserting new success critera between existing success ccriteria in the guideline, but it means success criteria in each guideline are no longer grouped by conformance level. The order of success criteria within each guideline does not imply information about conformance level; only the conformance level indicator (A / AA / AAA) on the success criterion itself indicates this. The WCAG 2.1 Quick Reference provides ways to view success criteria grouped by conformance level, along with many other filter and sort options.
WCAG 2.1 uses the same conformance model as WCAG 2.0 with a couple additions, which is described in the Conformance section. It is intended that sites that conform to WCAG 2.1 also conform to WCAG 2.0, which means they meet the requirements of any policies that reference WCAG 2.0, while also better meeting the needs of users on the current Web.
In parallel with WCAG 2.1, the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is developing another major version of accessibility guidelines. The result of this work is expected to be a more substantial restructuring of web accessibility guidance than would be realistic for dot-releases of WCAG 2. The work follows a research-focused, user-centered design methodology to produce the most effective and flexible outcome, including the roles of content authoring, user agent support, and authoring tool support. This is a multi-year effort, so WCAG 2.1 is needed as an interim measure to provide updated web accessibility guidance to reflect changes on the web since the publication of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group might also develop additional interim versions, continuing with WCAG 2.2, on a similar short timeline to provide additional support while the major version is completed.
Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive.
Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language.
Provide alternatives for time-based media.
Create content that can be presented in different ways (for example simpler layout) without losing information or structure.
Make it easier for users to see and hear content including separating foreground from background.
User interface components and navigation must be operable.
Make all functionality available from a keyboard.
Provide users enough time to read and use content.
Do not design content in a way that is known to cause seizures or physical reactions.
Provide ways to help users navigate, find content, and determine where they are.
New
Make it easier for users to operate functionality through various inputs beyond keyboard.
Information and the operation of user interface must be understandable.
Make text content readable and understandable.
Make Web pages appear and operate in predictable ways.
Help users avoid and correct mistakes.
Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted by by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.
Maximize compatibility with current and future user agents, including assistive technologies.
This section lists requirements for conformance to WCAG 2.1. It also gives information about how to make conformance claims, which are optional. Finally, it describes what it means to be accessibility supported, since only accessibility-supported ways of using technologies can be relied upon for conformance. Understanding Conformance includes further explanation of the accessibility-supported concept.
The main content of WCAG 2.1 is normative and defines 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]].
In order for a Web page to conform to WCAG 2.1, all of the following conformance requirements must be satisfied:
One of the following levels of conformance is met in full.
Although conformance can only be achieved at the stated levels, authors are encouraged to report (in their claim) any progress toward meeting success criteria from all levels beyond the achieved level of conformance.
It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA Success Criteria for some content.
Conformance (and conformance level) is for full Web page(s) only, and cannot be achieved if part of a Web page is excluded.
For the purpose of determining conformance, alternatives to part of a page's content are considered part of the page when the alternatives can be obtained directly from the page, e.g., a long description or an alternative presentation of a video.
Authors of Web pages that cannot conform due to content outside of the author's control may consider a Statement of Partial Conformance.
New A full page includes each variation of the page that is automatically presented by the page for various screen sizes (e.g. variations in a responsive Web page). Each of these variations needs to conform (or needs to have a conforming alternate version) in order for the entire page to conform.
When a Web page is one of a series of Web pages presenting a process (i.e., a sequence of steps that need to be completed in order to accomplish an activity), all Web pages in the process conform at the specified level or better. (Conformance is not possible at a particular level if any page in the process does not conform at that level or better.)
An online store has a series of pages that are used to select and purchase products. All pages in the series from start to finish (checkout) conform in order for any page that is part of the process to conform.
Only accessibility-supported ways of using technologies are relied upon to satisfy the success criteria. Any information or functionality that is provided in a way that is not accessibility supported is also available in a way that is accessibility supported. (See Understanding accessibility support.)
If technologies are used in a way that is not accessibility supported, or if they are used in a non-conforming way, then they do not block the ability of users to access the rest of the page. In addition, the Web page as a whole continues to meet the conformance requirements under each of the following conditions:
In addition, the following success criteria apply to all content on the page, including content that is not otherwise relied upon to meet conformance, because failure to meet them could interfere with any use of the page:
If a page cannot conform (for example, a conformance test page or an example page), it cannot be included in the scope of conformance or in a conformance claim.
For more information, including examples, see Understanding Conformance Requirements.
Conformance is defined only for Web pages. However, a conformance claim may be made to cover one page, a series of pages, or multiple related Web pages.
Conformance claims are not required. Authors can conform to WCAG 2.1 without making a claim. However, if a conformance claim is made, then the conformance claim must include the following information:
A concise description of the Web pages, such as a list of URIs for which the claim is made, including whether subdomains are included in the claim.
The Web pages may be described by list or by an expression that describes all of the URIs included in the claim.
Web-based products that do not have a URI prior to installation on the customer's Web site may have a statement that the product would conform when installed.
If a conformance logo is used, it would constitute a claim and must be accompanied by the required components of a conformance claim listed above.
In addition to the required components of a conformance claim above, consider providing additional information to assist users. Recommended additional information includes:
Refer to Understanding Conformance Claims for more information and example conformance claims.
Refer to Understanding Metadata for more information about the use of metadata in conformance claims.
Sometimes, Web pages are created that will later have additional content added to them. For example, an email program, a blog, an article that allows users to add comments, or applications supporting user-contributed content. Another example would be a page, such as a portal or news site, composed of content aggregated from multiple contributors, or sites that automatically insert content from other sources over time, such as when advertisements are inserted dynamically.
In these cases, it is not possible to know at the time of original posting what the uncontrolled content of the pages will be. It is important to note that the uncontrolled content can affect the accessibility of the controlled content as well. Two options are available:
A determination of conformance can be made based on best knowledge. If a page of this type is monitored and repaired (non-conforming content is removed or brought into conformance) within two business days, then a determination or claim of conformance can be made since, except for errors in externally contributed content which are corrected or removed when encountered, the page conforms. No conformance claim can be made if it is not possible to monitor or correct non-conforming content;
OR
A "statement of partial conformance" may be made that the page does not conform, but could conform if certain parts were removed. The form of that statement would be, "This page does not conform, but would conform to WCAG 2.1 at level X if the following parts from uncontrolled sources were removed." In addition, the following would also be true of uncontrolled content that is described in the statement of partial conformance:
A "statement of partial conformance due to language" may be made when the page does not conform, but would conform if accessibility support existed for (all of) the language(s) used on the page. The form of that statement would be, "This page does not conform, but would conform to WCAG 2.1 at level X if accessibility support existed for the following language(s):"
This section shows changes proposed for WCAG 2.1 since its publication as a W3C Recommendation. These changes are also recorded as errata.
The full commit history to WCAG 2.1 is available.
No changes have been made to date.
Acknowledgements