In short
WCAG is the international standard for web accessibility, organised under four principles and three conformance levels. Level AA is what most organisations are held to and what contracts typically specify. Version 2.2 added criteria covering focus visibility, alternatives to dragging, minimum target sizes, avoiding cognitive tests during authentication, and not requiring information the user already provided.
What WCAG is
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are the international standard for making web content usable by people with disabilities. They are published by the W3C and referenced by legislation in many jurisdictions, which is why they turn up in contracts.
The guidelines are organised under four principles: content must be perceivable, interfaces operable, content understandable, and markup robust enough for assistive technology to interpret reliably.
Under those sit success criteria — specific, testable requirements.
The three levels
Level A is the minimum. Failing it means some people cannot use the content at all.
Level AA is the practical target. It is what most legislation references, what most procurement requires, and what a client asking about accessibility usually means.
Level AAA is stricter and not expected across a whole site. Some criteria at this level are impossible for certain content types, which the guidelines themselves acknowledge.
If someone asks whether your site is accessible, they are almost always asking about AA.
What 2.2 added
Version 2.2 was published as an incremental update. Nine criteria were added, and the ones most likely to affect an existing site are these.
Focus not obscured. When an element receives keyboard focus, it must not be entirely hidden behind other content. The common failure is a sticky header or a cookie banner covering the focused element as someone tabs down the page — so keyboard users are operating something they cannot see.
Dragging alternatives. Any action performed by dragging must have a single-pointer alternative. Drag-to-reorder lists, sliders, and drag-and-drop uploads all need a non-dragging route, because dragging is difficult or impossible for some people.
Target size. Interactive targets should be at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels, with exceptions for inline links in text and where spacing compensates. Small icon buttons crowded together are the usual failure.
Consistent help. If a help mechanism — contact link, chat, phone number — appears on multiple pages, it should appear in the same relative place. Moving it around forces people to search for it repeatedly.
Accessible authentication. Login should not require a cognitive function test such as remembering a password or solving a puzzle, unless an alternative exists. In practice this means allowing password managers to fill fields, permitting paste, and not blocking autofill — which is worth noting because blocking paste on password fields remains common and is now a conformance failure.
Redundant entry. Do not ask for information the user already provided in the same process, unless re-entry is essential. Asking someone to type their address twice in one checkout is the classic case.
What was removed
One criterion from 2.1 was deprecated: the requirement about parsing, which required markup to be free of certain HTML errors. Modern browsers and assistive technology handle malformed markup consistently enough that it no longer predicted real problems.
That is worth knowing because older audit tools may still report it.
Does 2.2 mean re-auditing everything?
No. WCAG versions are backward compatible — meeting 2.2 means you meet 2.1 and 2.0. If your site conformed to 2.1 AA, you have a short list of new criteria to check rather than a fresh audit.
Realistically, on a site built with reasonable care, the ones most likely to fail are focus obscured by sticky headers, target size on small icon buttons, and blocked paste on password fields. All three are quick to check and quick to fix.
Conformance is not a certificate
There is no official body that certifies WCAG conformance. Anyone claiming to issue a certification is selling their own assessment.
What exists is an accessibility statement — your own documented claim about which level you meet, how you tested, and what known issues remain. Public sector bodies in several jurisdictions are required to publish one.
Being honest in that statement matters more than claiming full conformance. "AA with these known exceptions, being addressed by this date" is credible and defensible. A blanket claim that does not survive testing is worse than an honest partial one.
Where to start
If accessibility has become a requirement and you do not know where you stand, do not begin with the specification. Begin with the practical checks — keyboard operability, focus visibility, contrast, form labels — which cover the criteria that actually block people.
Then use WCAG as the reference for the specifics, and as the shared vocabulary when a client asks what level you meet.
If accessibility is now in a contract you have signed, book a call and we will tell you honestly what closing the gap involves.
Common questions
What is WCAG 2.2?
The current version of the international accessibility standard, organised under four principles — perceivable, operable, understandable, robust — with three conformance levels. It added nine success criteria to version 2.1 and deprecated one, and it remains backward compatible with earlier versions.
What level of WCAG do I need to meet?
Level AA in almost all cases. It is what most legislation references, what procurement typically requires, and what someone asking whether your site is accessible generally means. Level AAA is stricter and not expected across an entire site.
What are the main new requirements in WCAG 2.2?
Focus must not be entirely obscured by other content such as sticky headers, dragging actions need a single-pointer alternative, interactive targets should be at least 24 by 24 pixels, help mechanisms must appear consistently, authentication must not require a cognitive test, and users should not have to re-enter information they already gave.
Does WCAG 2.2 require a new audit if I met 2.1?
No. The versions are backward compatible, so meeting 2.2 means meeting 2.1 and 2.0. You only need to check the added criteria — most commonly focus obscured by sticky headers, target sizes on small icon buttons, and password fields that block paste.
Can a website be certified as WCAG compliant?
No official body issues certification, so anyone offering one is selling their own assessment. What exists is an accessibility statement: your documented claim about the level met, how you tested, and what known issues remain. An honest partial claim is more defensible than a blanket one that fails testing.
