WCAG 3.0 is an active W3C Working Draft in development by the AGWG. Requirements, assertions, the conformance model and reporting tiers are still being developed and may change. The latest published draft is the 10 September 2026 Working Draft; this site follows the editors’ draft, which also includes exploratory provisions.
Prerecorded audio content is interpreted into the primary sign language most appropriate for its audience or region. Audio that is an alternative to visual content and labelled as such, decorative background sound and interface sound effects are exempt.
Why It Matters
For many deaf people a sign language is their first language and the written language of the page is a second one, so captions are not an equivalent route.
Check that sign language interpretation is available either as picture-in-picture or in a video closely associated with the audio controls.
Check that sign language interpretation uses a version of sign language appropriate for the intended audience or region.
Expected results
#1 and #2 are true.
W3C Working Group Status
W3C Maturity Status:developing
Track / Group:images-and-media
The draft records no open editors' notes on this provision.
W3C Threads on This Provision
1 GitHub thread carrying 7 comments,
fetched from w3c/wcag3 by the
tracker. Titles, numbers and states are the threads' own.
⚠️ This summary is stale — comments landed after it was written.
What the Argument Is About
Not a debate so much as one proposal being sharpened: whether prepared sign language translation for prerecorded media should be a named requirement rather than an aspiration, and how far beyond video it should reach.
Positions taken in the thread
Name it, require it, and it will build its own supplyInfoGapBuster
Argues WCAG 2.0 put sign language at AAA and this led to limited implementation; writing as a Deaf person, InfoGapBuster reports that when sign language is not a required criterion organisations default to captions alone (#325). Wants "Provision of videos with sign language translation" defined as a distinct Outcome, and draws a line the draft does not: interpretation is real-time signing for live contexts, translation is prepared in advance with attention to clarity and accuracy, and translation is what prerecorded content intended for repeated viewing by a wide audience should get. Answers the obvious objection about scarce qualified interpreters and translators by arguing that requiring it generates demand, expands the pool, and accumulates data that could train future AI translation.
Go further — signed alternatives for text, not just mediamd84419
Agrees with the whole proposal but wants Gold treated as a genuine aspirational benchmark, and calls for a supplemental requirement that sign language users have access to a sign language alternative for website text, not only for video. Grounds it in the same rationale InfoGapBuster gave, that millions rely on sign language as their first, preferred or only accessible language, and in anti-discrimination law: the UDHR, ICCPR, EU Charter and American Convention, plus the ADA's auxiliary-aids duty, the BSL Act 2022 and BSL (Scotland) Act 2015, Ireland's Irish Sign Language Act 2017, South Korea's Korean Sign Language Act 2016, New Zealand's NZSL Act 2006, and Filipino Sign Language mandates. Adds ISO 24495-1:2023, ISO/IEC 29184:2020, GDPR Article 12(1) and EU AI Act Articles 14 and 50 on information in an intelligible, preferred-language form.
Nothing can be pinned to a level yetGreggVan
The only note of caution in the thread. Gold is likely achievable without meeting everything listed at that level, and the working group has not finalised what any of Bronze, Silver or Gold mean, so nothing definitive can be said about placing sign language in one. Neither participant contested this, and both continued proposing level assignments.
Agreed
Captions and sign language are not interchangeable — for users whose first language is signed, written captions do not deliver full comprehension. Unrebutted throughout.
The interpretation/translation distinction is real and the current draft does not make it; prepared translation is the right fit for prerecorded content.
Still open
Whether sign language for prerecorded media stays supplemental or becomes a required criterion — InfoGapBuster's central ask, which nobody has answered.
Whether the scope extends from multimedia to website text at all, as md84419 proposes. InfoGapBuster's revised framework after md84419's intervention (sign language alternatives for text not required at Bronze, recommended at Silver, and provided for key information such as policy documents, educational materials and terms of service at Gold) drew no response.
Where this belongs in the document — md84419 notes in November 2025 that the issue is filed under Image and Media Alternatives but is really about text alternatives, and probably needs a new section under Text and Wording.
Note
A single thread (#325) with six comments, and effectively a conversation between two people who agree, with one procedural caution from GreggVan. There is no opposing camp on record here — the proposal has not been rejected, it has not been taken up either.
Sign language interpretation is provided for all prerecorded audio content in the primary sign language that is most appropriate for each intended audience or region.
:::except-when
- The audio content is an alternative for visual content and is clearly labeled as such.
- The audio content is decorative background sound.
- The audio is an interface sound effect.
:::
:::example
Audio description is an example of audio content that is an alternative for visual content.
:::