New WCAG 3.0 Draft Released. What's 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's Changing in WCAG 3.0?", we introduced the major changes from WCAG 2.x. Since then, discussions have continued (with the draft also updated in March), and in this new draft, there are significant revisions to how "conformance" is determined and how "improvement efforts" are communicated.

We've compiled the main points, focusing on changes from the previous introduction and the current state of discussions.

* The following is based on the September 10, 2026 draft version. It may change before final recommendation.

Introduction: Terminology Clarification

In the previous article, we introduced the term "Outcomes" as a replacement for "Success Criteria" in WCAG 2.x. The current draft has clarified the structure. The main terms and their roles are as follows.

Term	Role
Guideline (Guidelines)	From the user's perspective, the desired outcome to be achieved
Requirements	Testable specifications. Divided into core requirements and supplementary requirements
Assertions	A documented statement by an organization of the steps and efforts it takes to improve accessibility
Methods	Reference information showing specific techniques for each technology to meet requirements

Separating "conformance" from "progress in improvement"

The biggest change this time is a proposal to separate the conformance judgment from how progress is communicated.

In the September 2025 version introduced in the previous article and the version released this past March, three levels of "conformance level" — Bronze, Silver, and Gold — were shown, with Bronze as the minimum standard for conformance. In this draft, conforming to all "core requirements" in the scope is the condition for conformance, and there is only one conformance level.

In addition, a mechanism has been proposed to communicate the intermediate stages leading up to conformance and efforts beyond conformance through a "Reporting tiers" framework.

Four tags attached to core requirements

The foundation of the reporting tier is made up of four tags assigned to each individual core requirement.

Tags	What happens when requirements are not met
Physical harm (bodily injury)	Could cause direct physical harm to people with disabilities
Risk	Unduly increasing financial, medical, legal, privacy, and security risks
Barrier	Unable to proceed
Friction	Use is hindered. Multiple issues can prevent progress entirely.

Reporting tier list

Reporting tier	Required criteria
1：Avoid physical harm	Meets core requirements for Physical Harm and Risk
2：Foundational access	Additionally meets core requirements for Barrier
3: Conformance	Additionally meets core requirements for Friction (= meets all core requirements)
4：Bronze	Conformance plus supplementary requirements (number to be determined) and content-related assertions
5：Silver	More supplementary requirements and content-related assertions than Bronze
6：Gold	Additionally, fulfillment of organization-related assertions

In the previous article, we introduced Bronze as a basic level of conformance. In this draft proposal, the stage where all core requirements are met becomes "Conformance (Tier 3)," with Bronze positioned as representing a higher level of effort.

Even when full conformance has not been achieved, it becomes easier to communicate progress—such as "requirements for preventing physical harm have been addressed" or "improvements have advanced to addressing barrier-related requirements."

However, it remains in the "reference information" stage

What is important to note is that the "Reporting" chapter containing this reporting tier is positioned as "reference information (informative/non-normative)" in the draft, with a maturity level of "Exploratory" as direction is still being examined. In contrast, the "Conformance" chapter, which specifies that "conformance is achieved by meeting all core requirements," is normative and has a more advanced maturity level of "Developing."

In other words, the maturity level of review differs between the conditions for conformance and the method of reporting progress.

Scoring-based evaluation is also still under discussion

In the previous article, we introduced an approach to evaluate each outcome on a 0–4 point scale. This five-level evaluation does not appear in the current draft text.

Instead, the Explainer document includes a method using "scores" as an alternative reporting tier.

Using the four tags mentioned earlier as weights (Physical Harm and Risk = 3 points, Barrier = 2 points, Friction and Others = 1 point)
The sum of the weights of the criteria met within the scope is divided by the total sum of all weights to show the achievement rate (%).
After conformance, Bronze, Silver, or Gold is awarded based on the number of supplemental criteria and assertions met.

Both the tier approach and the score approach use the same tags as a foundation. The main difference is whether achievement is communicated in stages or by achievement rate. The working group is seeking public comments on which approach is more promising, or whether a different method is needed.

"Conformance" and "compliance" are different things.

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

A narrowly defined conformance model as a normative standard.
Methods for measuring and reporting progress toward and beyond conformance, provided as informative reference.
Guidance for policymakers on using WCAG 3.0 in regulation.

For example, use cases like "regulators require Silver for organizations above a certain size" are cited as examples. When concerned about the relationship with JIS X 8341-3 domestically, it may be helpful to think of "conformance to standards" and "what laws or procurement requirements demand" as separate design layers.

Text readability and media requirements are now more concrete.

Individual requirements are also being refined and expanded.

Text appearance

Requirements for readability—line length, line spacing, typeface, font size, letter spacing, capitalization, and hyphenation—have been clarified.
Some specific values for line spacing and letter spacing are still pending.
W3C is seeking research and expert input on non-Latin languages and writing systems.

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

Core requirements and supplementary requirements have been organized for each guideline.
Alongside this, assertions such as "has a design system", "conducted usability testing with users who need it", and "reviewed by creators" are listed.

Clear language

Explanation of abbreviations and summaries of lengthy passages have been proposed as core requirements.
Some numerical values are provisional, and multilingual support is currently under review in collaboration with W3C internationalization (i18n) working groups.

Contrast evaluation methodology deserves attention in future discussions.

In our previous article, we introduced new approaches to contrast evaluation, including APCA and Lc values. In the current draft, the contrast calculation algorithm is explicitly marked as "undecided."

The requirement language assumes that "the algorithm includes font size and weight factors," but if it does not, those factors will be added to the requirements. There is also a note that if the algorithm cannot account for red-green color vision diversity, a separate requirement may be needed. How the final mechanism will work, including whether APCA will be adopted, depends on ongoing discussions.

Previous content and current review status

Previous content	Current review status
Outcome-centered structure	Guidelines demonstrate user outcomes, organized in a structure supported by requirements and assertions
Bronze/Silver/Gold conformance levels	One conformance level exists. Bronze and above are proposed as "reporting tiers" that exceed conformance
Bronze is the baseline conformance level	Proposal to define "conformance" as the stage where all core requirements are met
Approach to evaluate each outcome on a 0-4 point scale	The Explainer includes an alternative proposal using achievement rates based on tag weighting
Contrast evaluation using APCA or Lc values	The algorithms and baseline values to be adopted are still under review

WCAG 3.0 continues to evolve

Looking at this update, I feel that WCAG 3.0 aims to define conformance requirements simply, while also providing a mechanism to communicate the progress toward meeting them and organizational efforts that go beyond conformance.

On the other hand, many aspects—including evaluation methods and specific metrics—remain undecided. The Working Group targets two draft publications per year, and the current content is expected to evolve through ongoing discussions.

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

W3C is also seeking research and insights. In particular, "text appearance and non-Latin character support" is a theme that directly concerns us in the Japanese-speaking region. Research and insights are especially needed on topics such as line spacing in vertical writing systems (Evidence and Research Needed).

WCAG 3.0 will take more time to finalize. We will continue to implement measures based on current standards while closely monitoring the development of the specification.

Reference information:

The new WCAG 3.0 draft has been released. What's changed?