WCAG 3.0 New Draft Published: What Has Changed? | Topics

On September 10, 2026, a new Working Draft of WCAG 3.0 and its accompanying explainer document were published.

In our previous article, What Changes in WCAG 3.0?, we introduced the main changes from WCAG 2.x. Development has continued since then (the draft was also updated once in March). In this draft, the approach to determining whether content conforms and how improvement efforts are communicated has been substantially revised.

This article summarizes the key points, focusing on changes from our previous overview and the current state of discussions.

Note: The following is based on the draft version dated September 10, 2026. It may change before the final Recommendation is published.

Introduction: Clarifying the Terminology

In our previous article, we introduced "Outcomes" as the replacement for WCAG 2.x "Success Criteria." The current draft has reorganized the structure. The key terms and their roles are as follows.

Term	Role
Guidelines	Outcomes that show the results users want to achieve from their perspective
Requirements	Testable provisions, divided into core requirements and supplemental requirements
Assertions	Documented statements by organizations describing the steps and efforts they take to improve accessibility
Methods	Reference information showing specific techniques for meeting requirements, organized by technology

Separating "conformance" from "progress in improvement"

The biggest change in this draft is a proposal to separate the determination of conformance from how improvement progress is communicated.

Up to the September 2025 version covered in our previous article, and the version published this March, the guidance defined three conformance levels: Bronze, Silver, and Gold, with Bronze as the minimum level of conformance. In this draft, conformance requires meeting all core requirements within the scope, and there is only one conformance level.

The framework also proposes a way to communicate the intermediate steps toward conformance, as well as efforts that go beyond conformance, through "Reporting tiers."

Four tags attached to core requirements

The foundation of the reporting tiers is four tags assigned to each core requirement.

Tag	What happens if not met
Physical harm	Could directly cause physical harm to people with disabilities
Risk	Unduly increases risks related to finances, healthcare, legal matters, privacy, or security
Barrier	Users can't move forward
Friction (resistance)	Hinders the use of the service. When multiple issues stack up, users may be unable to move forward.

List of reporting tiers

Reporting tier	Required provisions
1：Avoid physical harm	Meets the core requirements for Physical harm and Risk
2：Foundational access	In addition to the above, meets the core requirements for Barrier
3: Conformance	In addition to the above, meets the core requirements for Friction (i.e., meets all core requirements)
4：Bronze	In addition to conformance, it covers supplementary requirements (the number is yet to be determined) and content-related assertions
5：Silver	Satisfies more supplementary requirements and content-related assertions than Bronze
6：Gold	Additionally, satisfies organization-related assertions

In our previous article, we introduced Bronze as the baseline conformance level. In this proposal, the level at which all core requirements are met is defined as "Conformance (Tier 3)," and Bronze is positioned as a higher-level commitment.

Even when full conformance has not been reached, it becomes easier to communicate how far improvements have progressed, such as "meets the requirements for physical harm" or "has advanced to the barrier-related requirements."

However, it is still at the "informative" stage

Note that the "Reporting" section, which contains these reporting tiers, is positioned in the draft as "informative (non-normative)" and has a maturity level of "Exploratory," meaning its direction is still being considered. By contrast, the "Conformance" section, which defines conformance as meeting all core requirements, is normative and has advanced one step further to "Developing" maturity.

In short, the conditions for conformance and the method for reporting progress are at different levels of maturity in the discussion.

Scoring-based evaluation is still under consideration

In our previous article, we introduced the concept of rating each outcome on a 0 to 4 scale. This five-level rating does not appear in the current draft text.

Instead, the Explainer document includes an alternative to reporting tiers: a scoring-based approach.

Weight the four tags mentioned above as follows: Physical harm and Risk = 3 points, Barrier = 2 points, Friction and other = 1 point.
Within the scope, the total weight of the requirements met is divided by the total weight of all requirements and expressed as a percentage achievement rate.
After conformance, Bronze, Silver, or Gold is awarded based on the number of supplemental requirements and assertions met.

Both the tier proposal and the scoring proposal are built on the same tags, and the main difference is whether results are conveyed in levels or as a percentage achieved. The Working Group is seeking public comment on which approach is most promising, or whether a different approach is needed.

"Conformance" and "compliance" are different things

The current draft includes an editor's note stating that "conformance and compliance are not the same and have historically been conflated," and says that WCAG 3.0 will provide the following three separately.

A narrowly defined conformance model as a normative requirement
Informative guidance on how to measure and report progress toward, and beyond, conformance
Guidance for policymakers on using WCAG 3.0 in regulation

For example, it is also cited as a use case where regulators require a seal for organizations above a certain size. For those in Japan who are concerned about the relationship with JIS X 8341-3, it may help to think of "conformance to the standard" and "what laws or procurement requirements call for" as separate layers of design.

Requirements for text readability and media are also becoming more specific

Individual requirements are also being added and refined.

Text appearance (Text appearance)

Requirements for readability have been organized, including line length, line spacing, typeface, font size, letter spacing, capitalization, and hyphenation
Some specific values, such as line spacing and letter spacing, are still undetermined
W3C is seeking research and expert collaboration on languages and writing systems that use non-Latin characters

Media (transcripts, captions, audio description, sign language)

Each guideline has been organized into core requirements and supplemental requirements
In addition, assertions are listed such as "has a style guide," "conducted usability testing with users who need it," and "reviewed by creators."

Clear language

Core requirements proposed include explanations of abbreviations and summaries of lengthy text.
Some numerical values are placeholders. Support for multiple languages is under consideration in coordination with the W3C Internationalization (i18n) related groups.

Watch for future discussion on how contrast evaluation methods will be determined

In our previous article, we introduced APCA and Lc values as new concepts for evaluating contrast. In this draft, the contrast calculation algorithm is explicitly marked as "undecided."

The requirement text assumes that the algorithm includes font size and weight factors, but it notes that if they are not included, requirements will need to be added. There is also a note that if red-green color vision diversity cannot be handled by the algorithm, a separate requirement may be needed. Exactly what kind of mechanism will ultimately be adopted, including whether APCA is used, depends on future discussion.

What we covered previously and the current status of discussions

What we covered previously	Current status of discussions
Outcome-focused structure	Guidelines describe user outcomes, organized into a structure supported by requirements and assertions
Bronze, Silver, and Gold conformance levels	One conformance level. Bronze and above are proposed as "reporting tiers" that go beyond conformance.
Bronze is the baseline conformance level	A proposal to define "conformance" as meeting all core requirements
An approach that scores each outcome from 0 to 4 points	An alternative approach using tag-weighted achievement rates is included in the Explainer
Contrast evaluation using APCA and Lc values	The algorithms and threshold values to adopt are still under discussion

WCAG 3.0, which continues to evolve

Looking at this update, I get the sense that WCAG 3.0 aims to define conformance requirements in a simpler way, while also making it possible to communicate the progress along the way and the efforts organizations make beyond conformance.

On the other hand, many parts are still undecided, including the evaluation methods and the specific numerical values. The Working Group aims to publish drafts twice a year, and I expect the content of this update to keep evolving through future discussions.

Feedback on the draft is accepted by opening issues in the w3c/wcag3 repository on GitHub.

W3C is also asking for research and insights. Among them, "non-Latin text presentation" is a topic that directly affects those of us in the Japanese-speaking world. In particular, research and insights are needed on topics such as line spacing in vertical writing languages (Evidence and Research Needed).

It will still take time before WCAG 3.0 is finalized. At Liberogic, we will continue to implement accessibility measures based on the current standards while keeping a close watch on the development of the new guidelines.

References: