What changed in WCAG 2.2: nine criteria added, one removed
Updated . A 10 minute read.
WCAG 2.1 to WCAG 2.2, marked up the way an editor marks a revision
In the order the criteria appear in the standard. W3C says everything else carried over essentially unchanged.
- Added2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)AA
- Added2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced)AAA
- Added2.4.13 Focus AppearanceAAA
- Added2.5.7 Dragging MovementsAA
- Added2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)AA
- Added3.2.6 Consistent HelpA
- Added3.3.7 Redundant EntryA
- Added3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum)AA
- Added3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced)AAA
- Removed
4.1.1 ParsingA
- 50
- Level A and AA criteria in WCAG 2.1, 4.1.1 Parsing among them
- −1 +6
- Parsing removed, six new criteria added at Level A and AA
- 55
- Level A and AA criteria in WCAG 2.2, the number an AA target means today
What changed, in one paragraph
WCAG 2.2 became a W3C Recommendation on 5 October 2023, and the current edition is dated 12 December 2024 (republished with errata fixes; no new criteria). Against WCAG 2.1 it does two things. It adds nine success criteria, two at Level A, four at AA and three at AAA, aimed at three groups W3C names: people with cognitive or learning disabilities, people with low vision, and people with disabilities using phones and tablets. And it removes one, 4.1.1 Parsing. Nothing else in 2.1 changed its meaning.
One quirk trips people up. The new criteria were added at the end of their guideline so no old number had to move, which means the numbers no longer run in level order: 2.4.11 is AA while 2.4.12 and 2.4.13 are AAA. Read the level printed on each criterion, never its place in the list. If you want the background first (who writes WCAG, what the levels mean), start with what WCAG is; this guide is only the difference.
The nine new criteria at a glance
One line each on what to check, and the page on this site that covers it in depth. Six of the nine are Level A or AA, so a site that targets WCAG 2.2 Level AA has to meet them; the three AAA rows are optional.
Scroll sideways to see every column.
| Criterion and level | What to check | Covered on this site |
|---|---|---|
| 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)AA | Tab down a long page with the cookie banner open. No focused item may vanish completely under a sticky header, footer or banner. | Focus indicators, when something covers the focus |
| 2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced)AAA | The same walk, stricter: no part of the focused item may be covered. | Focus indicators, the stricter twin |
| 2.4.13 Focus AppearanceAAA | The focus ring is at least as large as a 2px outline round the control and changes 3:1 between focused and unfocused. | Focus indicators, why Focus Appearance is AAA |
| 2.5.7 Dragging MovementsAA | Anything you drag (a slider, a sortable list, a map pin) also works with single clicks or taps. | WCAG 2.2 AA checklist |
| 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)AA | Icons and buttons are at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels, or spaced so a 24px circle on each does not touch a neighbour. | ADA website checklist, links and buttons |
| 3.2.6 Consistent HelpA | Your phone number, contact link, chat or help page sits in the same order on every page that has it. | Accessibility statement generator |
| 3.3.7 Redundant EntryA | A multi-step form never makes people type again what they already gave; it fills it in or offers it to pick. | Accessible forms, redundant entry |
| 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum)AA | Sign-in works with a password manager and with paste, and any puzzle has a way round it. | Accessible forms, CAPTCHAs and sign-in |
| 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced)AAA | As 3.3.8, but picking out objects or your own photo no longer counts as the way round. | Accessible forms, sign-in |
Every one of the six is a plain test you can run by hand. Our WCAG 2.2 AA checklist holds them beside the other 49 Level A and AA criteria, with a printable record of what you found.
The five a small business site meets most
Most of a small business site is pages, a contact form, maybe a shop or a booking flow. These five new criteria land squarely on those parts, and most of them need a person to try the page: a scanner cannot tell whether a slider works without dragging or whether a form asked for the same address twice.
2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)AA
Anything you click or tap must be at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels, or spaced so that a 24 pixel circle centred on it does not touch the next target. Links inside a sentence are exempt, as are the browser's own controls you have not restyled. Where it bites on a small site: a row of social icons in the footer, the close button on a pop-up, the plus and minus buttons beside a quantity in the cart, the little dots under a slideshow.
The fix is padding, not bigger icons: give the link or button its own box of 24 pixels or more and let the icon sit inside it. The older AAA criterion 2.5.5 asks for 44 by 44; this site's buttons are 44 pixels tall.
2.5.7 Dragging MovementsAA
Anything done by dragging must also work with a single pointer and no drag: a click, a tap. W3C's own examples are a range slider such as a price filter (let people click the track, or type the value in a box beside it) and a list you reorder by dragging (add up and down buttons). Booking calendars where you drag across dates and map pins you drag into place fall under it too.
Two details catch developers. Keyboard support does not settle it: W3C points out that people on touch screens, or using a head pointer or eye gaze, may have no keyboard at all. And a swipe is not an acceptable alternative, since it is another movement along a path. Ordinary page scrolling is the browser's job and is not covered.
3.2.6 Consistent HelpA
If your pages offer help, it has to sit in the same order relative to the rest of the page everywhere it appears. The rule names four kinds: contact details (a phone number or email address), a way to reach a person (a contact form, live chat), a self-help option (an FAQ or help page) and an automated one (a chatbot). It does not oblige you to offer help at all; it only stops help from wandering.
The usual fail is a phone number in the header of the home page that moves to the footer on inner pages, or a chat widget that loads on some templates and not others. Put contact in one shared header or footer and it is met. Your accessibility statement needs a contact path too, so it is a good moment to decide where that path lives.
3.3.7 Redundant EntryA
In one process, anything a person already typed must not be asked for again by hand: fill it in, or let them pick it. The textbook case is a checkout that asks for a billing address after the delivery address; a "same as delivery" box meets it. A booking flow that asks for your name on step one and again on step three fails it.
The browser's autofill does not count, because the rule asks the site to carry the answer forward. It does not ask you to remember anything between visits, and asking for a password again for security is allowed. Our guide to accessible forms has a working example.
3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum)AA
Signing in must not depend on memory or a puzzle unless there is a way round it. Remembering a password is a memory test, so the way round is to let password managers fill the field and to allow paste. Every step counts, the one-time code included. The rule covers signing in to an existing account, not creating one.
At AA, a CAPTCHA that asks people to pick out objects (the crossings, the buses) still passes; at AAA, 3.3.9, it no longer does. If customers log in to book, pay or download, read the sign-in section of our forms guide before you touch anything else.
The takeaway
Five quick tries cover most of it: tap every icon on a phone, work every slider and sortable list with clicks only, find your phone number on three pages, run your checkout once, and sign in with a password manager.
Focus: one new AA rule and two at AAA
The sixth A or AA criterion is 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum): when a control gets keyboard focus it must not be entirely hidden by something the site put there, which in practice means a sticky header, a sticky footer, a chat bubble or a cookie banner. W3C lists one line of CSS, scroll-padding, as a sufficient fix. Its AAA twin, 2.4.12, allows no part of the control to be covered.
2.4.13 Focus Appearance, also AAA, sets a size and contrast for the focus ring itself. It is not part of an AA target, whatever an older article says (a later section explains where that mistake comes from). All three, with the CSS that meets them and a ring you can try, are in our guide to focus indicators; walking a page for them is step by step in the focus order checklist.
The takeaway
For Level AA the focus change is small: keep the ring you should already have under 2.4.7, and make sure nothing sticky sits on top of it.
4.1.1 Parsing is gone: what that means for your site
What WCAG 2.2 says about 4.1.1 Parsing
This criterion was originally adopted to address problems that assistive technology had directly parsing HTML. Assistive technology no longer has any need to directly parse HTML. Consequently, these problems either no longer exist or are addressed by other criteria. This criterion no longer has utility and is removed.
4.1.1 asked for tidy markup: complete start and end tags, correct nesting, no duplicate attributes, unique IDs. The HTML standard and browsers now cope with broken markup far better, and screen readers rely on the browser instead of reading the code themselves, so W3C dropped it. For an owner that means an HTML validator error is no longer a WCAG failure on its own. Do not pay anyone to clear validator warnings for their own sake.
The real problems behind some of those errors did not go away; they moved. W3C says many of them now fail 1.3.1 Info and Relationships or 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value. A duplicated ID is the usual case: if two fields share one, a label that points at that ID can name the wrong field, and that is a labelling failure whatever the version.
Under WCAG 2.1 the criterion still exists, but it now carries a note that it "should be considered as always satisfied for any content using HTML or XML". So if an audit or a demand letter lists 4.1.1 Parsing as a 2.1 failure, it is reading the rule the old way. In a VPAT® report, ITI's templates fix the row: always Supports for WCAG 2.0 and 2.1, and marked obsolete and removed in a WCAG 2.2 report.
Why other articles disagree: the drafts
WCAG 2.2 went through public drafts for years before October 2023, and some of what those drafts said is still being copied. If an article gives a different level or number from the table above, check it against the W3C text. These four mix-ups all trace back to a draft.
Scroll sideways to see every column.
| What you may read | Where it came from | What WCAG 2.2 says |
|---|---|---|
| 2.4.7 Focus Visible moved to Level A | Working Draft, 21 May 2021, marked it Level A and “Changed” | Still Level AA, as in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 |
| Focus Appearance is a Level AA criterion, 2.4.11 | Candidate Recommendation, 6 September 2022 | 2.4.13 Focus Appearance, Level AAA. 2.4.11 is now Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) |
| 3.3.7 is Accessible Authentication and 3.3.8 is Redundant Entry | Working Draft, 21 May 2021, numbered them that way round | 3.3.7 Redundant Entry (A), 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) (AA) |
| Page Break Navigation and Visible Controls are new in 2.2 | Working Draft, 21 May 2021, listed both as 2.4.13 and 3.2.7 | Neither is in WCAG 2.2 |
The rule of thumb: a list of WCAG 2.2 criteria is right only if it matches the W3C Recommendation, the page whose header reads "W3C Recommendation" and not "Working Draft" or "Candidate Recommendation".
If your target is still WCAG 2.1
Plenty of rules still name an older version. DOJ's ADA Title II rule for state and local governments sets WCAG 2.1 Level AA as its technical standard (not 2.2). Section 508 points to WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA, and the EU edition of the VPAT® carries WCAG 2.1. None of them is broken by building to 2.2: content that conforms to WCAG 2.2 also conforms to WCAG 2.0 and 2.1.
W3C's working group goes further and recommends WCAG 2.2 as the target even when an obligation names an earlier version, for better access and to be ready for future policy changes. Our working advice follows it: build and test to WCAG 2.2 Level AA, and report against whatever version your contract or rule names. The one thing 2.2 drops that a 2.1 report still lists is 4.1.1, which is answered by rule, as above.
This is general information, not legal advice. For your own situation, ask a lawyer.
Quick reference
WCAG 2.2 in five lines
- Recommendation 5 October 2023; current edition 12 December 2024.
- Nine criteria added: two at A, four at AA, three at AAA. One removed: 4.1.1 Parsing.
- New at A and AA: 2.4.11, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.2.6, 3.3.7, 3.3.8.
- Level AA now means 55 criteria, up from 50 in WCAG 2.1. 2.4.13 Focus Appearance is AAA.
- Conforming to 2.2 also conforms to 2.1 and 2.0, so a 2.1 target is met by building to 2.2.