Summary

  • W3C published an updated WCAG 3 Working Draft on 10 September. On 25 September, WAI director Shawn Lawton Henry explained its proposed separation of conformance, progress reporting and policy selection.
  • The draft gives conformance one proposed threshold: all core requirements met within a defined scope. Its reporting tiers can describe progress below that threshold or achievements beyond it; they are not additional conformance levels.
  • This is unfinished work. The reporting section is exploratory, an alternative scoring approach remains open for comment, and WCAG 2 remains the current standard.

A public agency may one day ask a supplier to meet an accessibility rule for an application form. A procurement team may use a different set of expectations for a media site. Under the September WCAG 3 proposal, both could look to the same standard, but neither can hand its policy decision back to W3C. The standard can describe a conformance line. A regulator or buyer must still say what it requires, for whom, and why.

The news is an explicit division of labor. W3C issued an updated WCAG 3 Working Draft and an accompanying explainer on 10 September. Shawn Lawton Henry, director of the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, explained the approach on 25 September. In her account W3C provides the measurement instrument; laws, regulations and institutional policies set the obligations. That distinction is not a declaration that accessibility is optional. It identifies the author of each decision when a draft technical model is later used in public rules.

The draft's conformance section is marked Developing. For a specified scope to conform, every core requirement must be satisfied. Its editor's note says the notion of levels has moved from conformance to reporting. Section 4 is labeled Exploratory and informative. It sketches tiers below the one conformance point and above it, using tags on core requirements and, at higher tiers, supplemental requirements and assertions. WAI's introduction places conformance at tier 3 of six proposed reporting tiers. The quantities of supplemental provisions for upper tiers are still to be determined.

Calling tier 1 a lesser form of WCAG 3 conformance would misstate the proposal.

The four proposed core tags describe potential consequences of failure: physical harm, risk, barrier and friction. They can help a reader see why some failures may warrant particular attention. Yet the draft itself warns that the severity of a failure also depends on context: the same requirement may play a different role in a medical application than in an incidental page element. A tag is not a complete harm assessment and does not by itself tell a jurisdiction which subset to legislate.

The WAI director uses sign-language access to show the tension. It can make content much more accessible to people for whom a signed language is primary, but universal production would face cost, limited resources and multiple languages. The current model can recognize that need without making it a universal core-conformance condition. The consequence is a visible policy question, not a disappearance of the need: when should an essential service, purchaser or sector require an additional provision, and who answers to users if it does not?

The standards record itself constrains the claim. WAI is asking reviewers whether the single-level model and tiers improve on earlier drafts; the explainer also presents an alternative scoring approach. The Working Draft says publication does not mean endorsement by W3C or its Members. It has not become a Recommendation or a law. WAI says WCAG 3 is incomplete and will change substantially, while WCAG 2 remains the current standard and will not immediately be displaced even after a future WCAG 3 finalization. Organizations cannot honestly present these proposed tiers as a finished certification regime.

The governance test is therefore a selection receipt. If a public body or buyer borrows tags, supplemental requirements or reporting tiers, it should identify the covered service and users, the person or body making the selection, the evidence of possible harm, the provisions included or excluded, how the decision can be challenged and when it will be revisited. That is an editorial recommendation, not a W3C rule. It preserves the usefulness of a common measurement language while making the local exercise of power traceable to its actual owner.

Sources