a11y teacher edition W3C WCAG 2.2 & WCAG 3.0 draft reference
Plain English Accessibility Hub

Translating W3C Standards for Designers, Developers, QA & Product teams

Audit calculator

WCAG 3 Audit Calculator

Check a site against the core requirements in the WCAG 3 draft. Answer a few questions about your site for a quick estimate, or go through every provision in the full audit. Results follow the conformance and reporting models in the current draft and its Explainer.

How this calculator scores, and what the draft hasn't decided yet
  • Conformance means every core requirement in scope is met. That is the draft's rule, and it is the one result here that doesn't depend on anything still undecided.
  • Reporting tiers: the draft lists six. Tiers 1 and 2 (Avoid physical harm, Foundational access) depend on harm, risk, barrier and friction tags on each core requirement. No requirement has been tagged yet, so they can't be worked out. Tier 3 is conformance. Bronze, Silver and Gold (tiers 4 to 6) add supplemental requirements and assertions, in numbers the draft hasn't set.
  • Progress score: the Explainer's alternative approach scores progress toward conformance as the percentage of requirements met, weighted 3 for physical harm and risk, 2 for barrier and 1 for friction and everything else. With no tags yet, every requirement here counts 1.
  • Not in the draft: partial credit and pass thresholds. This calculator uses neither.
Which draft?

Answer yes, no or not sure, one topic at a time. Questions about things your site doesn't have are skipped, and follow-ups appear only when they apply. Everything stays in this browser.

Topic 1 of 15

Pages and text

Does every page or screen have a title that describes its name, topic or purpose?
Is the language of the content set in the code, including any passages in a different language?

For example the lang attribute on the html element, and on any element whose language differs.

Is all visible text available to assistive technology as text, rather than only as pixels in an image, canvas or vector shapes?
Does all text have enough contrast against its background?

The draft has not chosen a contrast measure yet. Until it does, WCAG 2.2's 4.5:1 for normal text and 3:1 for large text is a reasonable stand-in.

Can text be enlarged to at least 200% of the platform's default body text size?
Can people override text and background colours, for example with a high-contrast mode or browser settings, without losing content or functionality?
Can people override the typeface, font width, text decoration, capitalization and hyphenation of text without losing content or functionality?

For example with a user stylesheet or a reading extension.

Can people adjust margins, line length, line height and justification of paragraphs without losing content or functionality?
Are abbreviations explained or expanded the first time they are used?

Words like HTML or scuba that have their own dictionary entry don't need it.

Are dates, times, temperatures and Roman numerals written so they can't be misread, and marked up with a machine-readable equivalent?

For example 3 May 2025 rather than 03/05/2025, and a time element with a datetime value.

Is bold, italic, size or other styling ever used to carry meaning beyond emphasis, such as marking an error?
Do you have pages with long-form text, 300 words or more organized in paragraphs?
Is any content in a language that is often written without diacritics for proficient readers, such as Hebrew or Arabic?

What your answers point to

Core requirements that look unmet

  • None so far.

To check

  • None so far.

Can't be tested yet

A quick check is an estimate from your own answers, not an audit. It covers core requirements only; supplemental requirements and assertions, which count toward Bronze, Silver and Gold, are in the full audit.