WCAG 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, and WCAG 3.0 Comparison!

By: skyneteditorone

Aug 13, 26

Aug 20, 26

8 mins

500

WCAG 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 3.0 - What actually changed, and which version should a website follow today?

For businesses, government agencies, universities, healthcare organizations, and other digital service providers, the answer is more complicated than simply selecting the latest version. Each WCAG release reflects new accessibility challenges, technologies, and ways people interact with digital content.

WCAG 2.0 established the foundation for modern web accessibility. WCAG 2.1 expanded that foundation to address mobile accessibility, low vision, and cognitive learning disabilities. WCAG 2.2 went further, addressing practical barriers involving focus, target size, authentication, dragging, and other common interactions.

Then comes WCAG 3.0 which takes a fundamentally different direction. Rather than simply adding more success criteria, the developing standard explores a broader, outcome-based approach to evaluating accessibility across digital experiences.

So, does WCAG 2.2 replace 2.1? Is WCAG 2.0 still relevant? Does WCAG 3.0 replace the current WCAG 2.x framework? And most importantly, what does each version mean for an accessibility strategy?

This guide compares WCAG 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 and 3.0, highlighting the major changes, new requirements, conformance approaches, and practical implications for accessibility testing and remediation.

Area / Success Criterion	WCAG 2.0	WCAG 2.1	WCAG 2.2	WCAG 3.0
Status	W3C Recommendation	W3C Recommendation	W3C Recommendation	Working Draft, March 3, 2026
Published	2008	2018	2023	Under development
Core principles	Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust (POUR)	Continues POUR	Continues POUR	Exploring a broader outcome-oriented approach
Guidelines	12 guidelines	13 guidelines	13 guidelines	Proposed structure is evolving
Success Criteria	61	78	86	No finalized equivalent set
Conformance levels	A, AA, AAA	A, AA, AAA	A, AA, AAA	Bronze, Silver, and Gold are being explored
1.1 Text Alternatives	Included	Remains applicable	Remains applicable	Broader outcomes being explored
1.2 Time-based Media	Included	Remains applicable	Remains applicable	Broader media accessibility outcomes
1.3 Adaptable	Included	Expanded	Remains applicable	Broader accessibility outcomes
1.3.4 Orientation	—	Added — AA	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose	—	Added — AA	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
1.3.6 Identify Purpose	—	Added — AAA	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
1.4 Distinguishable	Included	Expanded	Remains applicable	Broader user outcomes being explored
1.4.10 Reflow	—	Added — AA	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
1.4.11 Non-text Contrast	—	Added — AA	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
1.4.12 Text Spacing	—	Added — AA	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
1.4.13 Content on Hover or Focus	—	Added — AA	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
2.1 Keyboard Accessible	Included	Expanded	Remains applicable	Broader interaction outcomes
2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts	—	Added — A	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
2.2 Enough Time	Included	Expanded	Remains applicable	Broader user needs being explored
2.3 Seizures	Included	Expanded	Remains applicable	Broader user outcomes being explored
2.3.3 Animation from Interactions	—	Added — AAA	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
2.4 Navigable	Included	Expanded	Further expanded	Broader navigation outcomes
2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)	—	—	Added — AA	No finalized equivalent
2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced)	—	—	Added — AAA	No finalized equivalent
2.4.13 Focus Appearance	—	—	Added — AAA	No finalized equivalent
2.5 Input Modalities	—	Added	Expanded	Broader interaction accessibility
2.5.1 Pointer Gestures	—	Added — A	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation	—	Added — A	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
2.5.3 Label in Name	—	Added — A	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
2.5.4 Motion Actuation	—	Added — A	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
2.5.5 Target Size	—	Added — AAA	Remains applicable	Broader usability considerations
2.5.6 Concurrent Input Mechanisms	—	Added — AAA	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
2.5.7 Dragging Movements	—	—	Added — AA	Broader interaction outcomes
2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)	—	—	Added — AA	No finalized equivalent
3.1 Readable	Included	Expanded	Remains applicable	Greater emphasis on comprehension
3.2 Predictable	Included	Expanded	Further expanded	Greater emphasis on usability
3.2.6 Consistent Help	—	—	Added — A	No finalized equivalent
3.3 Input Assistance	Included	Expanded	Further expanded	Greater emphasis on task completion
3.3.7 Redundant Entry	—	—	Added — A	Broader usability outcomes
3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum)	—	—	Added — AA	No finalized equivalent
3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced)	—	—	Added — AAA	No finalized equivalent
4.1 Compatible	Included	Expanded	Modified	Broader technology compatibility
4.1.1 Parsing	Included — A	Remains applicable	Removed	No finalized equivalent
4.1.3 Status Messages	—	Added — AA	Remains applicable	No finalized equivalent
Testing approach	Success Criterion-based	Success Criterion-based	Success Criterion-based	Exploring outcomes, methods, assertions, and evidence
Keyboard accessibility	Functional	Adds character key shortcuts	Strengthens keyboard interaction and focus.	More outcome-focused
Focus accessibility	Basic Requirements	Continues existing requirements	Adds stronger focus visibility criteria	Focus on effective user interaction
Mobile accessibility	Limited dedicated coverage	Major expansion	Further interaction improvements	Broader cross-device accessibility
Low vision accessibility	Basic contrast and resizing	Adds reflow, text spacing, non-text contrast	Further improves focus and target usability	Greater focus on user outcomes
Cognitive accessibility	Basic Support	Expanded considerations	Adds consistent help, authentication, redundant entry	Greater focus on functional needs
User experience	Technical compliance	Broader accessibility coverage	More user-focused requirements	Outcome andusabilityfocused
Functional needs	Limited emphasis	Expanded accessibility needs	Further practical considerations	Central to proposed framework
Overall approach	Foundational accessibility	Expanded WCAG 2.0	Refined WCAG 2.x	Proposed outcome-based framework

Note: The proposed WCAG 3.0 conformance approach has included concepts such as Bronze, Silver, and Gold, but these should not be presented as finalized WCAG requirements.

Does WCAG 2.2 replace WCAG 2.1?

Not in the sense of making the earlier version irrelevant. WCAG 2.2 builds on WCAG 2.1 and adds latest requirements. Assessing a website against WCAG 2.2 therefore needs to consider the applicable WCAG 2.2 success criteria in addition to the earlier requirements.

The correct target also depends on the applicable regulation, contract, procurement requirement, or organizational policy.

For latest accessibility initiatives, WCAG 2.2 is generally the most current completed version of WCAG 2.

Does WCAG 3.0 replace WCAG 2.2?

Not yet.

WCAG 3.0 is still in progress. Its structure, testing methods, conformance models, and other components may continue to change.

A more practical approach is to maintain conformance with the applicable WCAG 2.x requirements while following WCAG 3.0 development for future planning.

Which WCAG version should a website target?

There is no universal answer based solely on the version number.

The appropriate target depends on:

Applicable accessibility laws
Industry requirements
Procurement standards
Customer requirements
Existing conformance commitments
Website technology
User needs
Accessibility maturity

For a latest accessibility initiative, WCAG 2.2 Level AA is a strong modern benchmark when it aligns with the applicable requirements. Existing projects should first identify their current conformance level and determine what additional work is needed to reach the desired target.

How to move from WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 toward WCAG 2.2?

An upgrade should begin with an assessment rather than immediately changing the accessibility statement.

Establish the current baseline
Review the additional requirements
Test beyond automated scanning
Remediate and validate
Monitor ongoing changes

See this manual accessibility re-audit and WCAG 2.2 upgrade case study for a real-world example of accessibility testing and remediation!

Disclaimer – *The information contained on this page is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. We request you to consult a professional attorney or law firm to get legal advice on any subject matter. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in this site without seeking legal or other professional advice. The contents of this site contain general information and may not reflect current legal developments or address your situation. We disclaim all liability for actions you take or fail to take based on any content on this site. The operation of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Skynet Technologies USA LLC.

BACK TO BLOG