Confirmed statusWCAG 3 is an incomplete Working Draft. W3C says it is years from completion and will not supersede WCAG 2 for several years after finalization.
W3C has clarified a fundamentally different WCAG 3 conformance model
W3C published the current WCAG 3 Working Draft on September 10, then used a September 25 explanation to set out the thinking behind its conformance model. The draft proposes one core conformance level instead of WCAG 2's familiar A, AA, and AAA levels. Separate tags and reporting tiers are intended to show progress toward that level and accessibility work beyond it.
W3C calls WCAG 3 incomplete and expects substantial change. A Working Draft is not an endorsed or finished standard, so current procurement and conformance claims should stay anchored to WCAG 2.2.
One core level would define conformance while tiers describe the journey
Under the proposed model, content conforms only when it meets all core requirements. Those requirements build on WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA, with revisions and additions still in development. The draft then uses tags that describe the consequence of a failure: physical harm, risk, barrier, or friction.
W3C's WCAG 3 introduction maps the tags into six proposed tiers. The first two report progress, the third represents conformance, and the later tiers add supplemental requirements and assertions. Content above conformance is not settled.
| Draft layer | What it communicates | Status for teams now |
|---|---|---|
| Tiers 1 and 2 | Progress across selected core-requirement tags | Useful as a model to examine, not a conformance claim |
| Tier 3 | All core requirements met, which is the proposed conformance point | Still part of an incomplete Working Draft |
| Tiers 4 to 6 | Core requirements plus increasing supplemental work and assertions | Definitions and thresholds are not final |
The proposal separates the standard from the policy built around it
W3C describes WCAG as the ruler and policy as the rules for using it. The draft adds tags so policymakers could distinguish contexts. A health application, for example, may weigh physical harm, medical risk, and blocked tasks differently from a publishing site.
This is not a legal shortcut. The Working Draft separates a normative conformance model, informative reporting guidance, and advice for policymakers. Those layers are unfinished; current law, contracts, and standards still determine obligations.
One design idea is useful already: report the consequence, not only the violated rule. “Keyboard users cannot correct their payment address, so the purchase stops” tells every owner why the issue belongs in a release.
Seuil analysis: accessibility evidence will need two views
If this direction survives, reporting will need two views. A strict view asks whether every core requirement is met. An operational view shows removed barriers and supported practices. Blending them could make progress look like conformance.
Consider a hypothetical banking flow. A team fixes an inaccessible authentication step that blocked customers using a screen reader, then creates a documented process for including disabled participants in research. The first change may affect a core requirement. The process may support an assertion above the baseline. Both matter, but they are different claims and need different evidence.
Audit systems should keep raw evidence, affected journeys, methods, dates, owners, and retest results. The website accessibility audit guide explains why a score is insufficient. WCAG 3 could make that separation more important.
Do not pause WCAG 2.2 work while WCAG 3 develops
W3C's direct recommendation is to meet WCAG 2.2 now. WCAG 3 is years from completion and will not supersede WCAG 2 for several more years after finalization. The model will change.
Keep targets, acceptance criteria, procurement, and remediation anchored to applicable standards. Continue manual testing with disabled people and assistive technology. A UX audit can connect barriers to product decisions, but not turn draft concepts into certification.
Teams can run a parallel experiment: tag copied findings as harm, risk, barrier, or friction, then test whether the model improves prioritization. Keep the exercise out of contractual reporting.
Important parts of the model remain open
The proposal still contains unresolved choices. W3C is asking whether one conformance level with reporting tiers improves earlier approaches, whether an alternative scoring model would work better, and how different roles would use the tiers. Requirements can move between maturity states, and exploratory content remains outside the published Working Draft.
The WCAG 3 Explainer provides background, while the introduction is the maintained starting point for status and review questions. Organizations with accessibility specialists should review the model against real evidence and submit focused comments. The valuable question is not whether six tiers look elegant. It is whether the structure helps people identify and remove barriers without weakening a clear conformance threshold.
What product teams should do now
- Keep WCAG 2.2 as the current technical target unless an applicable policy specifies something else.
- Record user consequence, affected journey, method, evidence, owner, and retest result for each finding.
- Separate strict conformance evidence from progress reporting and work beyond the baseline.
- Pilot the proposed harm, risk, barrier, and friction tags on a copy of recent audit findings.
- Monitor the official WCAG 3 introduction, Working Draft, Explainer, and review questions for changes.
- Do not advertise WCAG 3 compliance, certification, or legal coverage from this incomplete draft.
The best preparation is boring in the useful sense: fix present barriers, improve evidence, involve disabled people, and keep claims precise. The draft may change the future reporting language. It does not change who gets blocked by your product this week.