Requirements for WCAG 3.0

WCAG 3.0 builds on the WCAG 2.0 Requirements of 2006. The WCAG 2.0 requirements are:

1. Ensure that requirements may be applied across technologies
2. Ensure that the conformance requirements are clear
3. Design deliverables with ease of use in mind
4. Write to a more diverse audience
5. Clearly identify who benefits from accessible content
6. Ensure that the revision is "backwards and forward compatible"

WCAG 3.0 wishes to advance the WCAG 2.0 Requirements of:

1. applied across technologies
2. clear conformance
3. ease of use
4. diverse audience
5. 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:

1. Define a clear conformance model for WCAG 2.1/dot.x releases
2. Ensure the conformance structure utilizes the WCAG 2.0 A / AA / AAA model

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.

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.

In addition to the above research, an issue was raised about how to apply accessibility evaluation and conformance to large and dynamic web sites which are updated frequently. This led to development of Challenges with Accessibility Guidelines Conformance and Testing, and Approaches for Mitigating Them. Suggestions in that document are an additional source of input to these requirements.

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.

• 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.

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.

• 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.

The Issue Severity Subgroup:

1. Demonstrated that it is possible to categorize tests by severity. See the critical severity worksheet for this information.
2. Added examples of critical failures to the tests for Text Alternative Available and Translates Speech And Non-Speech Audio.
3. Severity rating is best done at the test level. The higher the level the impact is assessed at, the less it aligns with the experience.
4. It would be best to incorporate task/context for the best alignment. This does depend on scoping and how to define the task/process.
5. It will be a lot of work to categorize each test with an impact level and the functional needs affected. It maybe best to focus on the critical issues. It would also be best to do the categorization as we go along, when creating tests.
6. Severity rating could contribute towards scoring, but there are many other questions to do with scoring.
7. Severity rating could also contribute towards prioritization, which could replace A/AA/AAA (at the test level)

Silver guidance includes tests and other evaluation methods. Some guidance may use true/false verification but other guidance will use other ways of measuring and/or evaluating where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities may be included (for example: rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more). This approach includes particular attention to people whose needs may better be met with a broad testing strategy, such as people with low vision, limited vision, or cognitive and learning disabilities.

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.

Make the guidelines available in different accessible and usable ways or formats so the guidance can be customized by and for different audiences.

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.

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. They link to instruction videos, illustrations, and how-to where available. Creation of new videos and illustrations are outside the scope of this project at this time.

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.

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.

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.