From W3C Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page tracks updates to WAI Resources for WCAG 2.1.


I think I've got all the main pages listed below. If anything is missing, please let me know. ~Shawn~

In Sept 2018, we decided to change "WCAG 2" & "WCAG 2.0" to "WCAG" in most places. That still needs to be done in most places.

Note: Links go to the GitHub versions, not the published version. They should mostly be in synch.

WAI (Staff) resources

To Do


Note: WCAG2ICT is still relevant for future versions of WCAG 2. For example, WCAG 2.1 does not change the requirements of WCAG 2.0 that are addressed in WCAG2ICT; WCAG 2.1 adds additional requirements. W3C may update WCAG2ICT in the future to add the additional requirements from later versions of WCAG 2.

None Needed

Not Updating

EOWG resources

Need to Do - EO

To be done with other projects:

To be prioritized:

Done - EO

None Needed - EO

  • Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools
  • Planning and Managing Web Accessibility
    • Initiate
    • Sustain
  • Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion
  • Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility

Future: Includes "2.1" so probably need to update if 2.2

Archived Info

Open Issue: WCAG 2.x

Sept 2018 update: WAI Team and EOWG agreed WCAG 2.0 & WCAG 2 -> WCAG
(WAI minutes, EOWG minutes)

Issue description: In many, many places we had "WCAG 2.0". In almost all cases, that now applies to both WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1. How do we handle that? In June we changed most instances of "WCAG 2.0" to "WCAG 2". Since WCAG 1.0 will be formally superseded soon, it seems 2 is not necessary. Also, it wasn't clear enough to some people (per below).

  • Note: There are a few places where we will always include a specific version number, for example, in "WCAG 2.0 is also an ISO standard: ISO/IEC 40500", in conformance statements, and in most example policies.


Change most references from "WCAG 2.0" and "WCAG 2" to just "WCAG".

We could still clarify "WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1" in text when we think it's needed and/or more useful than clutter.

Examples: Tips for Getting Started pages have sub-headings just "WCAG": Write, Design, Develop

Pro: The simplest and probably least confusing overall.

Note: We would want to make sure that people who only need to meet 2.0 can easily tell what is 2.0 and not be cluttered or confused by 2.1 requirements. This will mostly apply to the Quick Ref and AG documents, rather than most EOWG documents.


1. "WCAG" <--proposed

(info above)

2. "WCAG 2"

Examples: Titles: "How to Meet WCAG 2 (Quick Reference)", "WCAG 2 Translations"

Con/One perspective: "I find this labeling a bit confusing. WCAG 2 could cause confusion, looks as though 2.1 is not included in 2" GitHub569 – Eric thinks that stems from years of using WCAG 2 as a synonym or short form for WCAG 2.0. Maybe we could say (in certain key descriptions) “WCAG 2 (including 2.1)” to help users unlearn.

3. "WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1" or "WCAG 2.0 and 2.1"

Con: Too wordy.

4. “WCAG 2.x”

Maybe a bit too programmer jargon-y, I wonder if it is understood by a wider audience. {Eric}

5. “WCAG 2.0/2.1”

This would be explicit, but wouldn’t include other WCAG 2.x revisions in the future. Also a little bit harder to read. {Eric}

Con: A little bit more cognitively and visually complex.

Related proposal

In many EOWG documents we point to specific Understanding pages, and sometimes techniques. I think that we want to point to the Understanding 2.1 docs. However, someone only doing 2.0 might notice the /WCAG21/ URI and question if what they're looking at applies to 2.0. Therefore, I {Shawn} propose that near the top of each Understanding and Techniques page, it includes either:

  • Applies to WCAG 2.0 and 2.1
  • Applies to WCAG 2.1

There is also consideration about changing the URI to /WCAG2/ without a version number.