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.
+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. The guidelines apply tNext steps include:o various types of web content including static, dynamic, interactive, and streaming content; visual and auditory media; virtual and augmented reality; and alternative access presentation and control. 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.
+See WCAG 3.0 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.
@@ -24,39 +22,29 @@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 current proposal for WCAG 3.0 is made up of different parts and sections, including:
+Content is in various states of maturity. The status is marked at the top of each section (see 1.2 Section status levels).
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?
- +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.
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.
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.
@@
+The following guidelines are being considered for WCAG 3.0. They are currently a list of topics which we expect to explore more thoroughly in future drafts.
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 individuals and organizations that use WCAG vary widely and include web designers and developers, policy makers, purchasing agents, teachers, and students. 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 early drafts of guidelines included here serve as initial examples. They are used to illustrate what WCAG 3.0 could look like, demonstrate the structure, and test the process of writing content. These guideline drafts should not be considered as final content of WCAG 3.0.
+The following guidelines are being considered for inclusion in WCAG 3.0. They are used to illustrate what WCAG 3.0 could look like, demonstrate the structure, and test the process of writing and testing content. These guideline drafts should not be considered as final content of WCAG 3.0.
-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.
+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. The list is currently in alphabetical order, but we do not expect that to persist.
The site or app aids navigation
+The website or app aids navigation
The site or app has a consistent design
+The website or app has a consistent design
Controls have correct semantic markup
Controls notify users when making mistakes
+Inform users of errors and remedies
+User needs and Methods by Outcome +
Outcome: Notifications provided: + Provides notification of an error so users know that an error has occurred.
+Outcome: Notifications describe errors: + Provides a clear message describing the error so users understand the cause of the error.
+Outcome: Instructions provided to remedy errors: + Provides instructions in response to an error so users know what steps to take to remedy the error.
+Outcome: Timely and targeted guidance + Provides notification when the error occurs and identifies the source of error so users can readily refocus and remedy the error.
The site or app supports the keyboard
+The website or app supports the keyboard
The site or app supports mobile and pointer inputs
+The website or app supports mobile and pointer inputs
The site or app does not cause harm
+The website or app does not cause harm
The site or app provides help
+The website or app provides help
The site or app minimizes the impact of timing and interruptions
+The website or app minimizes the impact of timing and interruptions
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. However, conformance claims are not required and 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:
- +WCAG 3.0 will include a new conformance model to address a wider range of user needs, test a wider range of technologies and support new approaches to testing. We are exploring several approaches to conformance. After studying the comments on the previous draft, these are the concepts that showed promise. We are giving an overview in this draft, but we continue to test the combination of the concepts.
+There are several goals for this new conformance model:
We are exploring two options and encourage feedback about which aspects and approaches will be beneficial and which will not. We also seek feedback on the conformance approach as a whole.
-WCAG 3.0 defines outcomes and assertions.
-Outcomes are written as testable statements that allow testers to reliably determine if the content being evaluated satisfies the criteria. Only outcomes can be tested independently. Outcomes are addressed in Section 4.1.
- - -Assertions are attributable statements by person or organization that they followed a procedure to improve accessibility. Assertions are addressed in Section 4.2.
-WCAG 3.0 includes two (2) types of tests which are evaluated:
+The proposed approaches can fit together in a variety of ways. We will be testing these approaches and others for validity, reliability, sensitivity, adequacy, complexity and equity. We welcome suggestions on ways to improve these approaches to better meet these criteria and concerns about how they might affect accessibility. The working group plans to select from or even replace these options based on feedback, prototyping, and testing.
+There are two main approaches to evaluating accessibility that are promising. There are also detailed ideas that support these approaches. The two main approaches are:
Tests can be applied to four (4) different scopes:
+There are additional ideas that support these two approaches and can be used or combined in many different ways.
The details of these approaches change as we assemble them into a coherent whole. This draft gives a high level overview of these approaches so we can give an update and receive feedback on the individual approaches we are considering.
As we continue developing this content, we seek input on the following:
Next steps include:
Each outcome includes methods associated with different technologies. Each method contains techniques and sets of tests for meeting the outcome.
-Outcomes are written so that testers can test the accessibility of new and emerging technologies based solely on the outcome, even when methods do not yet exist for those technologies.
-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, a label or error message, 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 or a layer of web content – such as a modal.
- -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:
+To be written once content is agreed on.
+To be written when we sort out the Outcome questions.
+Outcomes are verifiable statements that allow testers to reliably determine if the content being evaluated satisfies the user needs identified in the Guideline. All Outcomes and Assertions that relate to a Guideline will be listed together to encourage adoption of higher levels of accessibility.
+Each outcome is associated with at least one method. Methods are informative and kept in how to documents. Each method contains techniques for meeting the outcome, examples, resources, and sets of tests for evaluating the outcome. Methods can apply to a specific technology, such as HTML, or can be more generic where the advice applies no matter what technology, such as the methods supporting the Clear Language guideline.
+ +Outcomes are written so that testers can determine the accessibility of technologies based solely on the outcome, even when methods do not yet exist for those technologies.
+ +WCAG 3.0 includes two (2) types of tests which are evaluated:
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 the 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.
-Tests can be applied to four (4) different scopes:
+WCAG 3.0 includes two (2) types of tests which are evaluated:
Most tests have prescribed ways to meet the test. In some cases, the ways to meet the test will change based on a specific condition being met (example: the language the content is written in).
-Although content may satisfy all outcomes using quantitative and qualitative tests, the content may not always be usable by people with a wide variety of disabilities. The assertions (see 4.2 below) are designed to address this problem.
+Although content may satisfy all outcomes using quantifiable and qualitative tests, the content may not always be usable by people with a wide variety of disabilities. The assertions (see section 4.3 below) are designed to address this problem.
Quantitative tests rely on measuring properties of the content based on nominal values. The test results are objectively verifiable, to avoid variation of test results between different testers. Values are quantitative, and could be boolean (true/false), for example to check the presence of titles, text alternatives, and accessible names. Other values could include numerical thresholds; for example, to check color luminosity ratios.
-Each method using quantitative tests includes:
+Quantifiable tests rely on measuring properties of the content based on nominal values. The test results are objectively verifiable, to avoid variation of test results between different testers. Values are quantifiable, and could be boolean (true/false), for example to check the presence of titles, text alternatives, and accessible names. Other values could include numerical thresholds; for example, to check color luminosity ratios.
+Each method using quantifiable tests includes:
Qualitative tests rely on evaluating content based on a set of defined expectations and exceptions. The set of expectations and exceptions limit the scope of decisions, to minimize variation of test results arrived at by different testers. Still, some level of qualitative assessment is required, therefore the accuracy of the test results also depends on the knowledge and context of the testers to some degree.
+Qualitative tests rely on evaluating content based on a set of defined qualities and exceptions. The set of qualities and exceptions limit the scope of decisions, to minimize variation of test results arrived at by different testers. Still, some level of qualitative assessment is required, therefore the accuracy of the test results also depends on the knowledge and context of the testers to some degree.
Each method using qualitative tests includes:
Some tests only apply in certain situations. Testing may occasionally require determining and referencing which specifications are being tested against. Methods will note whether a test always applies or under what conditions a test applies. Both Quantitative and Qualitative tests can be conditional.
+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, a label or error message, 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 or a layer of web content – such as a modal.
+ +User processes are a series of user actions, and the distinct interactive views and items that support the actions, where each action is required 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 the user process.
+ +The aggregate is the combination of items, views, and user processes that collectively comprise the website, set of web pages, web app, etc.
+Some tests only apply in certain situations. Testing may occasionally require determining and referencing which specifications are being tested against. Methods will note whether a test always applies or under what conditions a test applies. Both Quantitative and Qualitative tests can be conditional.
-As we develop example outcomes and methods, we want to explore conditions overall and how multiple measurements fit in. We welcome comments on allowing alternative measurements to meet an outcome.
+As we develop example outcomes and methods, we want to explore conditions overall and how multiple measurements fit in. We welcome comments on allowing alternative measurements to meet an outcome.
-This section is exploratory. -
Severity rating could contribute towards scoring and prioritization.
-As we continue developing this content, we seek input on the following:
-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.
-This section is exploratory. We are exploring two approaches to scoring and levels which are labeled Option 1 and Option 2. We continue to test these approaches and others for validity, reliability, sensitivity, adequacy, complexity and equity. We welcome suggestions on ways to improve them to better meet these criteria.The working group plans to select or even replace these options in late 2023 based on feedback, prototyping, and testing.
-As we continue developing this content, we seek input on the following:
-Next steps include:
-Outcomes will be scored as Pass or Fail.
-Some outcomes include methods which are not required. These "best practice" methods are stricter than those required to pass. -
Outcomes will be scored as Fail, Pass, or Exemplary. "Exemplary" meets stricter requirements than those needed to Pass.
-@@
+To be written once we agree on what goes in this section.
This section is exploratory.
As we continue developing this content, we seek input on the following:
@@ -447,13 +401,14 @@Next steps include:
An Assertion is a formal claim of fact, attributed to a person or organization. In WCAG 3, an assertion is an attributable and documented statement of fact regarding procedures practiced in the development and maintenance of the content or product to improve accessibility. Assertions are only testable in that one can test that the assertion has been made correctly - not that any desired result has occurred. The results are always true/false.
- -WCAG 3 recommends supporting documentation that an organization can use to improve or validate procedures and assertions. Conforming does not require this supporting documentation be made public.
+An Assertion is a formal claim of fact, attributed to a person or organization. In WCAG 3.0, an assertion is an attributable and documented statement of fact regarding procedures practiced in the development and maintenance of the content or product to improve accessibility. Testing of an assertion is always true/false — did they make an assertion and provide the required documentation?
Assertions may supplement methods in one or more outcomes. Assertions should only be used on outcomes and guidelines that allow assertions. Organizations can make an assertion that they followed a procedure to claim conformance at the Silver or Gold level.
- - -The AGWG is considering whether and how assertions can be applied to the Bronze level.
+Assertions may supplement methods in one or more outcomes. Assertions should only be used on outcomes and guidelines that allow assertions. Organizations can make an assertion that they followed a procedure to claim conformance.
-Procedures used in assertions may be implemented during implementation or as part of evaluation.
- -The AGWG is considering what will qualify as a procedure in WCAG 3. A procedure may be limited to guidance: -
Procedures used in assertions may be implemented at the organization level, during design and development, or during testing.
Examples of procedures that may be used during implementation might include:
Examples of procedures that may be used to evaluate accessibility might include:
The AGWG is considering what will qualify as a procedure in WCAG 3.0. A procedure may be limited to guidance: +
Assertions must be documented as part of the conformance claim process. The required information may also be made available through the web site.
+Assertions must be documented as part of the conformance claim process. The required information may also be made available through the website.
Assertions might include the following information:
WCAG recommends additional information that can support procedures. WCAG will not require organizations to provide supporting documentation to conform.
+WCAG recommends maintaining additional information that an organization can use to improve or validate procedures and assertions. WCAG will not require organizations to provide supporting documentation to conform.
The AGWG will add to this section as other areas are confirmed.
The quality of an assertion can be tested based on how well the assertion meets the documentation requirements for assertions (See Documenting Assertions). Conforming to WCAG does not require testing supporting documentation; however, organizations may decide to adopt additional documentation requirements based on the procedure being asserted.
+The quality of an assertion can be tested based on how well the assertion meets the documentation requirements for assertions (See Documenting Assertions). Conforming to WCAG does not require testing supporting documentation; however, organizations may decide to adopt additional documentation requirements based on the procedure being asserted.
This section is exploratory. We are exploring two approaches to scoring and levels which are labeled Option 1 and Option 2. We continue to test these approaches and others for validity, reliability, sensitivity, adequacy, complexity and equity. We welcome suggestions on ways to improve them to better meet these criteria.The working group plans to select or even replace these options in late 2023 based on feedback, prototyping, and testing.
+This section is exploratory. We are exploring several approaches to conformance. These approaches can fit together in a variety of ways. We will be testing these approaches and others for validity, reliability, sensitivity, adequacy, complexity and equity. We welcome suggestions on ways to improve them to better meet these criteria and concerns about how they might affect accessibility. The working group plans to select from or even replace these options based on feedback, prototyping, and testing.
+While there is a lot of overlap between WCAG 2.X and WCAG 3.0, WCAG 3.0 will include additional tests and different scoring mechanics. As a result, WCAG 3.0 is not backwards compatible with WCAG 2.X.
+The percentages used are placeholders and will need to be determined through testing. As we continue developing this content, we seek input on the following:
Next steps include
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.
- -All required Outcomes pass.
+WCAG 3.0 defines three levels of conformance: bronze, silver, and gold. While it is easy to replicate the WCAG2 A, AA, AAA by renaming the levels, there is an opportunity to improve accessibility for people with disabilities by using a more advanced approach.
+Bronze is the minimum conformance level. Content that does not meet the requirements of the bronze level does not conform to WCAG 3.0. To reach Bronze level, the scope claimed in the conformance statement must pass a subset of Outcomes and Assertions. The subset will require enough Outcomes and Assertions to improve equity across functional needs.
-While there is a lot of overlap between WCAG 2 and WCAG 3, WCAG 3 includes additional tests and different scoring mechanics. As a result, WCAG 3.0 is not backwards compatible with WCAG 2.X.
+Silver level incentivizes organizations to go further to improve accessibility. One possibility that we are examining is that Silver level points can accumulate even prior to completing bronze but are not usable until Bronze is achieved. The goal is to encourage organizations to go beyond the minimum, especially where organizations want to be recognized for their efforts to go beyond minimum accessibility.
+ +Gold level identifies measures we want to include for those organizations that do achieve Silver so that some can stand out as exemplary, cutting edge, and role models. There are a number of ideas that will be developed further once more of the conformance structure is solidified.
+This section is exploratory.
+Severity rating could contribute towards scoring and prioritization.
+As we continue developing this content, we seek input on the following:
+Next steps include:
+Outcomes may allow for the concept of varying severity. High severity issues are those which prevent users from completing user processes (tasks).
+Tests could include critical issues. Each test could 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.
Silver is a higher conformance level than Bronze.
-This section is exploratory.
+Adjectival Ratings allow test results to go beyond Pass or Fail to show progress towards a goal or exceeding a goal. Example of Possible adjectival ratings are:
+Outcomes or Guidelines could be evaluated using adjectival ratings:
+Gold is the highest conformance level.
-A way to integrate assertions would be needed
-A way to integrate assertions would be needed
-This section is exploratory.
+We are exploring whether percentages could apply to Bronze but have not found a model to date where this works without adding complexity and time needed for testing.
+As we continue developing this content, we seek input on the following:
+In this approach, percentage of Outcomes and Assertions passed or percentage passed at a certain adjectival rating might be used to conform to Silver and Gold levels.
This section is exploratory.
+Pre-Assessment checks are tests or criteria that implementors can use to determine if they are ready to assess conformance. The intent of specifying these would be to help implementors prepare for conformance testing, not to create a new level of conformance. Examples of pre-assessment checks might be:
+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.
+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 3.0 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 3.0 guidelines and outcomes. Not all WCAG 3.0 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:
+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 website 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.
+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 3.0 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.
In order for technology to conform to WCAG 3.0, the following conformance requirements apply:
+For technology to conform to WCAG 3.0, the following conformance requirements apply:
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.
+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 website and include 4 unique views. The other 6 views are the most commonly used.
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.
Adequacy is subtle metric, but important to WCAG 3.0 proposals. Adequacy describes if the formulas being used to process and score the accessibility testing results are using such a small interval that small changes in accessibility do not cause large changes in scoring. Benchmarking Web Accessibility Metrics, Vigo, Lopes, O Connor, Brajnik, Yesilada 2011.
+A system to report evaluation results as a set of human-understandable adjectives.
A formal claim of fact, attributed to a person or organization. An attributable and documented statement of fact regarding procedures practiced in the development and maintenance of the content or product to improve accessibility.
Methods which are not required and meet a higher requirement than methods required to conform to Bronze.
Complexity refers to the resources required to accomplish the conformance testing. These could be crawler time, or time for human judgment testing. This would be a useful metric to have to answer the question of how much time WCAG 3.0 takes to test as compared to WCAG 2.x. Benchmarking Web Accessibility Metrics, Vigo, Lopes, O Connor, Brajnik, Yesilada 2011.
+Satisfying all the requirements of the guidelines. Conformance is an important part of following the guidelines even when not making a formal Conformance Claim.
@@ -696,6 +692,10 @@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.
Equity is the outcome of processes and actions that ensure the spectrum of human reality obtains what is needed to participate, not solely access. As equity relates to WCAG it is about the impact the standards/guidelines have on people with disabilities, along with actually including PWD in the work.
This definition needs updating as the Equity group does more work. This definition came from the Equity subgroup of AGWG in Q2 2022
+See Outcomes.
A sequence of steps that need to be completed in order to accomplish an activity / task from +
A sequence of steps that need to be completed to accomplish an activity / task from end-to-end.
The reproducibility and consistency of scores i.e. the extent to which they are the same when evaluations of the same resources are carried out in different contexts (different tools, different people, different goals, different time). This would be particularly useful to ensure that similar results are achieved by different testers. It would also be useful to see if different testers would select the same path or off-path decisions. Representative sampling tests also fit in this category. + Benchmarking Web Accessibility Metrics, Vigo, Lopes, O Connor, Brajnik, Yesilada 2011.
+Evaluation conducted using machines to guide humans to areas that need @@ -751,6 +756,10 @@
Semi-automated evaluation involves components of automated evaluation and human evaluation.
Sensitivity of a metric is related to the extent that changes in the output of the metric are quantitatively related to changes of the accessibility of the website being analyzed. This metric is useful for determining if the conformance proposal captures the impact of the severity of accessibility barriers on the final score and if different disabilities are treated equally by the proposal. Benchmarking Web Accessibility Metrics, Vigo, Lopes, O Connor, Brajnik, Yesilada 2011.
+A group of tests that supports a method.
@@ -770,6 +779,10 @@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.
The extent to which the measurements obtained by a metric reflect the accessibility of the website to which it is applied. Does the rating that a website or digital product achieve in any conformance proposal actually reflect the rating that it should get? Benchmarking Web Accessibility Metrics, Vigo, Lopes, O Connor, Brajnik, Yesilada 2011. Accessed on 29 July 2020
+Methods map approximately to WCAG 2.X Techniques documents.
| WCAG 2 | -WCAG 3 | +WCAG 3.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Success Criteria | diff --git a/how-tos/error-notification/examples.html b/how-tos/error-notification/examples.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f6e51443 --- /dev/null +++ b/how-tos/error-notification/examples.html @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ + + + +