Since their introduction in 1999, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) have shaped how we design and develop inclusive digital products. The WCAG 2.x series, released in 2008, introduced clear technical criteria judged in a binary way: either a success criterion is met or not. While this model has supported regulatory clarity and auditability, its “all-or-nothing” nature often fails to reflect the nuance of actual user experience (UX).
Over time, that disconnect between technical conformance and lived usability has become harder to ignore. People engage with digital systems in complex, often nonlinear ways: navigating multistep flows, dynamic content, and interactive states. In these scenarios, checking whether an element passes a rule doesn’t always answer the main question: can someone actually use it?
WCAG 3.0 is still in draft, but is evolving — and it represents a fundamental rethinking of how we evaluate accessibility. Rather than asking whether a requirement is technically met, it asks how well users with disabilities can complete meaningful tasks. Its new outcome-based model introduces a flexible scoring system that prioritizes usability over compliance, shifting focus toward the quality of access rather than the mere presence of features.
Draft Status: Ambitious, But Still Evolving
WCAG 3.0 was first introduced as a public working draft by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Accessibility Guidelines Working Group in early 2021. The draft is still under active development and is not expected to reach W3C Recommendation status for several years, if not decades, by some accounts. This extended timeline reflects both the complexity of the task and the ambition behind it:
WCAG 3.0 isn’t just an update — it’s a paradigm shift.
Unlike WCAG 2.x, which focused primarily on web pages, WCAG 3.0 aims to cover a much broader ecosystem, including applications, tools, connected devices, and emerging interfaces like voice interaction and extended reality. It also rebrands itself as the W3C Accessibility Guidelines (while the WCAG acronym remains the same), signaling that accessibility is no longer a niche concern — it’s a baseline expectation across the digital world.
Importantly, WCAG 3.0 will not immediately replace 2.x. Both standards will coexist, and conformance to WCAG 2.2 will continue to be valid and necessary for some time, especially in legal and policy contexts.
This expansion isn’t just technical.
Rules alone can’t capture whether a system truly works for someone. That’s why WCAG 3.0 leans into flexibility and future-proofing, aiming to support evolving technologies and real-world use over time. It formalizes a principle long understood by practitioners:
Inclusive design isn’t about passing a test; it’s about enabling people.
A New Structure: From Success Criteria To Outcomes And Methods
WCAG 2.x is structured around four foundational principles — Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust (aka POUR) — and testable success criteria organized into three conformance levels (A, AA, AAA). While technically precise, these criteria often emphasize implementation over impact.
WCAG 3.0 reorients this structure toward user needs and real outcomes. Its hierarchy is built on:
- Guidelines: High-level accessibility goals tied to specific user needs.
- Outcomes: Testable, user-centered statements (e.g., “Users have alternatives for time-based media”).
- Methods: Technology-specific or agnostic techniques that help achieve the outcomes, including code examples and test instructions.
- How-To Guides: Narrative documentation that provides practical advice, user context, and design considerations.
This shift is more than organizational. It reflects a deeper commitment to aligning technical implementation with UX. Outcomes speak the language of capability, which is about what users should be able to do (rather than just technical presence).
Crucially, outcomes are also where conformance scoring begins to take shape. For example, imagine a checkout flow on an e-commerce website. Under WCAG 2.x, if even one field in the checkout form lacks a label, the process may fail AA conformance entirely. However, under WCAG 3.0, that same flow might be evaluated across multiple outcomes (such as keyboard navigation, form labeling, focus management, and error handling), with each outcome receiving a separate score. If most areas score well but the error messaging is poor, the overall rating might be “Good” instead of “Excellent”, prompting targeted improvements without negating the entire flow’s accessibility.
From Binary Checks To Graded Scores
Rather than relying on pass or fail outcomes, WCAG 3.0 introduces a scoring model that reflects how well accessibility is supported. This shift allows teams to recognize partial successes and prioritize real improvements.
How Scoring Works
Each outcome in WCAG 3.0 is evaluated through one or more atomic tests. These can include the following:
- Binary tests: “Yes” and “no” outcomes (e.g., does every image have alternative text?)
- Percentage-based tests: Coverage-based scoring (e.g., what percentage of form fields have labels?)
- Qualitative tests: Rated judgments based on criteria (e.g., how descriptive is the alternative text?)
The result of these tests produces a score for each outcome, often normalized on a 0-4 or 0-5 scale, with labels like Poor, Fair, Good, and Excellent. These scores are then aggregated across functional categories (vision, mobility, cognition, etc.) and user flows.
This allows teams to measure progress, not just compliance. A product that improves from “Fair” to “Good” over time shows real evolution — a concept that doesn’t exist in WCAG 2.x.
Critical Errors: A Balancing Mechanism
To ensure that severity still matters, WCAG 3.0 introduces critical errors, which are high-impact accessibility failures that can override an otherwise positive score.
For example, consider a checkout flow. Under WCAG 2.x, a single missing label might cause the entire flow to fail conformance. WCAG 3.0, however, evaluates multiple outcomes — like form labeling, keyboard access, and error handling — each with its own score. Minor issues, such as unclear error messages or a missing label on an optional field, might lower the rating from “Excellent” to “Good”, without invalidating the entire experience.
But if a user cannot complete a core action, like submitting the form, making a purchase, or logging in, that constitutes a critical error. These failures directly block task completion and significantly reduce the overall score, regardless of how polished the rest of the experience is.
On the other hand, problems with non-essential features — like uploading a profile picture or changing a theme color — are considered lower-impact and won’t weigh as heavily in the evaluation.
Conformance Levels: Bronze, Silver, Gold
In place of categorizing conformance in tiers of Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA, WCAG 3.0 proposes three different conformance tiers:
- Bronze: The new minimum. It is comparable to WCAG 2.2 Level AA, but based on scoring and foundational outcomes. The requirements are considered achievable via automated and guided manual testing.
- Silver: This is a higher standard, requiring broader coverage, higher scores, and usability validation from people with disabilities.
- Gold: The highest tier. Represents exemplary accessibility, likely requiring inclusive design processes, innovation, and extensive user involvement.
Unlike in WCAG 2.2, where Level AAA is often seen as aspirational and inconsistent, these levels are intended to incentivize progression. They can also be scoped in the sense that teams can claim conformance for a checkout flow, mobile app, or specific feature, allowing iterative improvement.
What You Should Do Now
While WCAG 3.0 is still being developed, its direction is clear. That said, it’s important to acknowledge that the guidelines are not expected to be finalized in a few years. Here’s how teams can prepare:
- Continue pursuing WCAG 2.2 Level AA. It remains the most robust, recognized standard.
- Familiarize yourself with WCAG 3.0 drafts, especially the outcomes and scoring model.
- Start thinking in outcomes. Focus on what users need to accomplish, not just what features are present.
- Embed accessibility into workflows. Shift left. Don’t test at the end — design and build with access in mind.
- Involve users with disabilities early and regularly.
These practices won’t just make your product more inclusive; they’ll position your team to excel under WCAG 3.0.
Potential Downsides
Even though WCAG 3.0 presents a bold step toward more holistic accessibility, several structural risks deserve early attention, especially for organizations navigating regulation, scaling design systems, or building sustainable accessibility practices. Importantly, many of these risks are interconnected: challenges in one area may amplify issues in others.
Subjective Scoring
The move from binary pass or fail criteria to scored evaluations introduces room for subjective interpretation. Without standardized calibration, the same user flow might receive different scores depending on the evaluator. This makes comparability and repeatability harder, particularly in procurement or multi-vendor environments. A simple alternative text might be rated as “adequate” by one team and “unclear” by another.
Reduced Compliance Clarity
That same subjectivity leads to a second concern: the erosion of clear compliance thresholds. Scored evaluations replace the binary clarity of “compliant” or “not” with a more flexible, but less definitive, outcome. This could complicate legal enforcement, contractual definitions, and audit reporting. In practice, a product might earn a “Good” rating while still presenting critical usability gaps for certain users, creating a disconnect between score and actual access.
Legal and Policy Misalignment
As clarity around compliance blurs, so does alignment with existing legal frameworks. Many current laws explicitly reference WCAG 2.x and its A, AA, and AAA levels (e.g. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, European Accessibility Act, The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018).
Until WCAG 3.0 is formally mapped to those standards, its use in regulated contexts may introduce risk. Teams operating in healthcare, finance, or public sectors will likely need to maintain dual conformance strategies in the interim, increasing cost and complexity.
Risk Of Minimum Viable Accessibility
Perhaps most concerning, this ambiguity can set the stage for a “minimum viable accessibility” mindset. Scored models risk encouraging “Bronze is good enough” thinking, particularly in deadline-driven environments. A team might deprioritize improvements once they reach a passing grade, even if essential barriers remain.
For example, a mobile app with strong keyboard support but missing audio transcripts could still achieve a passing tier, leaving some users excluded.
Conclusion
WCAG 3.0 marks a new era in accessibility — one that better reflects the diversity and complexity of real users. By shifting from checklists to scored evaluations and from rigid technical compliance to practical usability, it encourages teams to prioritize real-world impact over theoretical perfection.
As one might say, “It’s not about the score. It’s about who can use the product.” In my own experience, I’ve seen teams pour hours into fixing minor color contrast issues while overlooking broken keyboard navigation, leaving screen reader users unable to complete essential tasks. WCAG 3.0’s focus on outcomes reminds us that accessibility is fundamentally about functionality and inclusion.
For teams across design, development, and product leadership, this shift is a chance to rethink what success means. Accessibility isn’t about ticking boxes — it’s about enabling people.
By preparing now, being mindful of the risks, and focusing on user outcomes, we don’t just get ahead of WCAG 3.0 — we build digital experiences that are truly usable, sustainable, and inclusive.
Further Reading On SmashingMag
(gg, yk)
