Skip to content
wcagc
Create account
←Back to blog
WCAGhonestyconformanceaccessibility statement

What does WCAG compliant actually mean?

WCAG defines conformance, not compliance. What the phrase can honestly claim, which version and level the law means, and how to word your own claim.

P

Pavel Charkasau

When people say a site is "WCAG compliant", they usually mean that its pages meet every Level A and Level AA success criterion of some version of WCAG. WCAG itself never uses that phrase. The standard defines conformance, and conformance has five requirements that apply to whole pages and complete processes, not to a site in general (W3C, WCAG 2.2, section 5.2). "Compliance" belongs to the law. The ADA Title II rule, Section 508 and the EU's harmonised standard each pick a WCAG version and level and turn it into an obligation. So the honest version of "WCAG compliant" always carries three details: which version (2.0, 2.1 or 2.2), which level (almost always AA), and which pages, checked on which date. Leave any of those out and the claim can't be checked. It also can't come from a scanner on its own. The W3C says "no tool alone can determine if a page conforms to WCAG requirements" (W3C WAI). Below I explain what the phrase can honestly claim, what the law actually points to, and how to word your own claim.

Is "WCAG compliant" the same as WCAG conformance?

Close, but not the same, and the difference is useful.

WCAG is a W3C Recommendation, a technical standard. The current version, WCAG 2.2, was republished as a Recommendation on 12 December 2024 (W3C, WCAG 2.2). It describes what a page has to do to conform. The W3C's own explainer on conformance uses "conform" and "conformance" throughout and never "comply" (W3C, Understanding Conformance). It calls choosing a level "fundamentally a policy decision" and leaves that decision to others.

Laws and contracts make that decision. A regulation says "conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA", and from then on meeting it is a matter of compliance. That's why I read "WCAG compliant" as shorthand for "conforms to the version and level that some law or contract requires". The shorthand is fine in conversation. On a public page or in a sales deck, it hides the three things a reader needs to know.

What does a page need to conform to WCAG?

WCAG 2.2 section 5.2 lists five conformance requirements. All five have to hold (W3C, WCAG 2.2):

  1. Conformance level. The page meets every success criterion at the chosen level and below. For WCAG 2.2 AA that is 31 Level A plus 24 Level AA criteria, 55 in total (my count from the published Recommendation). Missing one means the page does not conform at AA. There is no partial credit.
  2. Full pages. Conformance "cannot be achieved if part of a web page is excluded." Responsive variations count as part of the page. Your mobile layout has to conform too.
  3. Complete processes. If a page is one step in a process, every step must conform. WCAG's own example is an online store: all pages "from start to finish (checkout)" conform, or none of them do.
  4. Accessibility-supported technologies. The way you use a technology has to work with users' assistive technology and their browsers (W3C, Understanding Conformance). A custom widget whose ARIA no screen reader understands doesn't count.
  5. Non-interference. Anything that isn't accessibility supported must not block the rest of the page. Four criteria apply to all content on the page, whatever you rely on: 1.4.2 Audio Control, 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap, 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide, and 2.3.1 Three Flashes.

Requirement 3 is the one that catches people. A clean homepage says very little about a checkout where the "Place order" button is a div with a click handler and no role. If that page fails 4.1.2, every page in the purchase flow fails with it.

Which WCAG version and level does the law mean?

Each law points to a specific version and level. "WCAG compliant" with no version attached doesn't match any of them exactly.

FrameworkWhat it referencesSource
ADA Title II (US state and local government)WCAG 2.1 Level AA, for web content and mobile apps. Compliance dates are 26 April 2027 (population 50,000+) and 26 April 2028 (smaller governments and special districts)ADA.gov
Section 508 (US federal ICT)"Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0" (E205.4)US Access Board
EAA via EN 301 549Version 3.2.1, built on WCAG 2.1, is the version in force. Version 4.1.1, which moves to WCAG 2.2 AA, came out on 2 September 2026. Its legal effect is expected once the Commission cites it in the Official Journal, currently planned for 16 December 2026NDA Ireland

Two details in that table matter more than they look.

First, Section 508 explicitly includes WCAG's conformance requirements, not only the success criteria. Passing every criterion on a page that is one broken step of a broken process is not what E205.4 asks for.

Second, the ADA Title II rule has its own section on minor gaps, § 35.205, for noncompliance "so minor that it would not change a person with a disability's access". ADA.gov is blunt that governments "cannot use this part of the rule to avoid trying to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA" (ADA.gov). The law cares about access. A conformance claim is how you document it.

For private businesses under ADA Title III there is still no regulation that names a WCAG version. WCAG 2.1 or 2.2 AA is the benchmark people use in practice, not a legal text. Our WCAG levels explainer covers why AA, and not AAA, is the usual target.

Can a scanner tell you if your site is WCAG compliant?

No. A scanner can tell you where your site definitely fails. It can't tell you that it passes.

The W3C says it directly: "No tool alone can determine if a page conforms to WCAG requirements. Sometimes evaluation tools can produce false or misleading results. Knowledgeable human evaluation is required to determine if a page is accessible" (W3C WAI). Automated tools catch roughly 30–57% of issues, depending on how you count. The top of that range comes from Deque's study of more than 2,000 audits and nearly 300,000 issues, which found automated testing identified 57% by volume (Deque, 2021).

Our scanner has the same limit, and I would rather say so here than in the small print. It will flag image-alt on img.hero and give you the selector. It won't tell you whether "photo of team" is a useful description, whether the focus order through your filter panel makes sense, or whether a screen reader announces your cart update. A person has to check those. Our WCAG checklist lists which criteria need that human pass.

So a scan result of "0 violations" means zero automatically detectable violations on the pages scanned. That's worth having, and it's a different statement from "conforms".

When is it fair to say a site is "WCAG compliant"?

Only when you can back up each part of the sentence. The US Federal Trade Commission made that concrete. In April 2025 it approved a final order requiring accessiBe to pay $1 million. The order bars the company from claiming its automated products "can make any website WCAG-compliant or can ensure continued compliance with WCAG over time" unless it has evidence to support that (FTC, 22 April 2025). Our write-up of the accessiBe settlement has the details.

Note the second half of that quote: "continued compliance over time". Conformance is a property of specific pages on a specific day. Ship a new modal on Tuesday and Monday's claim no longer describes your site.

Here is my view, plainly. I don't think "WCAG compliant" belongs on a website at all, even when it's true. The phrase invites the reader to assume the whole site, the current version, and forever. What earns trust is a dated, scoped sentence a reader can check. We hold ourselves to the same rule: our own accessibility statement describes wcagc.com as partially conformant, because automated checks cover only part of WCAG and our manual assessment is still ongoing.

If a badge is what you're weighing, read what a WCAG certification badge can claim. Short version: the W3C doesn't certify websites, and a logo counts as a conformance claim with all the required parts.

How should you word your own WCAG claim?

Use the components WCAG 2.2 section 5.3.1 requires for a conformance claim: the date, the guideline title, version and URI, the level, a description of the pages covered (including whether subdomains are in), and the web technologies relied upon (W3C, WCAG 2.2). Claims are optional. If you make one, it needs all of those.

Compare two sentences:

  • "Our website is WCAG compliant."
  • "On 10 October 2026, the pages under shop.example.com, including the full checkout, were evaluated against WCAG 2.2 Level AA using automated scanning, keyboard testing and NVDA with Firefox. Known issues: the store locator map has no text alternative; a fix is scheduled for November."

Only the second can be checked, and it tells a disabled user what to expect. It's also more or less what an accessibility statement is for. A statement documents your efforts and known gaps. It is not a guarantee. If your pages don't all conform yet, say "partially conforms" and list the exceptions. Our statement generator drafts one from your answers.

FAQ

Does "WCAG compliant" mean the same as "WCAG conformant"?

In practice people use them interchangeably, but WCAG only defines conformance. "Compliant" usually means the site conforms to whichever WCAG version and level a law or contract requires.

Which WCAG version do I need to be compliant with?

It depends on the framework. ADA Title II references WCAG 2.1 AA, Section 508 references WCAG 2.0 AA, and EN 301 549 v3.2.1 for the EAA is built on WCAG 2.1, with v4.1.1 moving to WCAG 2.2 AA once it is cited in the Official Journal (NDA Ireland).

Can a site be partly WCAG compliant?

Not at a given level. WCAG conformance is all or nothing per page and per complete process. You can honestly say a site "partially conforms" and list the known exceptions.

Can an automated scan prove WCAG compliance?

No. The W3C states that no tool alone can determine whether a page conforms and that knowledgeable human evaluation is required (W3C WAI).

Is it illegal to call my site "WCAG compliant"?

The phrase itself isn't banned, but an unsupported claim can be a deceptive one. The FTC's 2025 order against accessiBe bars it from claiming its products make websites WCAG-compliant without evidence (FTC).

Find out where you stand

Run a free scan to see the automatically detectable WCAG failures on your pages, each with its success criterion and the exact selector. It won't call your site compliant. It shows you what to fix first and which checks still need a person.

Pavel Charkasau, founder, wcagc.com Last updated: 17 October 2026

Sources