Requirements for WCAG 3.0 W3C Group Note Draft 03 March 2026 More details about this document This version: https://www.w3.org/TR/2026/DNOTE-wcag-3.0-requirements-20260303/ Latest published version: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/ Latest editor's draft: https://w3c.github.io/wcag3/requirements/ History: https://www.w3.org/standards/history/wcag-3.0-requirements/ Commit history Editors: Alastair Campbell ( Nomensa ) Rachael Bradley Montgomery ( Library of Congress ) Chuck Adams ( Oracle ) Kevin White ( W3C ) Jeanne Spellman ( TetraLogical ) Francis Storr ( Intel Corporation ) Feedback: GitHub w3c/wcag3 ( pull requests , new issue , open issues ) Copyright © 2021-2026 World Wide Web Consortium . W3C ® liability , trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract The Requirements for W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3 documentation is the next phase of development of the next major upgrade to accessibility guidelines. WCAG 3 will be the successor to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2 series. The Silver Task Force of the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group and the W3C Silver Community group partnered to incubate the needs, requirements, and structure for the new accessibility guidance. To date, the group has: Researched accessibility guidance needs. Developed problem statements and opportunities to improve accessibility guidance. Received input from industry leaders for directions to proceed. Drafted these high-level requirements for the next phase of the project, the prototyping and public input. Status of This Document This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C standards and drafts index . The Requirements for WCAG 3 is published as a joint effort of the Silver Task Force of the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group and of the W3C Silver Community Group . It is a work in progress, and comments are welcome as Github Issues or by email to [email protected] . This is the third phase of the Requirements after releasing the first public working draft of WCAG 3.0. Issues raised against the requirements were dealt with by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. This document was published by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group as a Group Note Draft using the Note track . Group Note Drafts are not endorsed by W3C nor its Members. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than a work in progress. The W3C Patent Policy does not carry any licensing requirements or commitments on this document. This document is governed by the 18 August 2025 W3C Process Document . Table of Contents Abstract Status of This Document 1. Introduction 1.1 Comparison to WCAG 2 Requirements 1.2 WCAG 3 Scope 1.3 Silver Task Force Research 1.4 Large and Dynamic Sites 1.5 Design Principles and Requirements 2. Opportunities for WCAG 3 2.1 Usability 2.2 Conformance Model 2.3 Maintenance 3. Design Principles 4. Requirements 4.1 Broad disability support 4.2 Flexible maintenance and extensibility 4.3 Multiple ways to display 4.4 Technology Neutral 4.5 Readability 4.6 Regulatory Environment 4.7 Motivation 4.8 Scope 4.9 Self-validation A. Change Log A.1 Changes Prior to First Public Working Draft A.1.1 Changes Prior to Second Version of Requirements B. Acknowledgements B.1 Contributors to the development of this document B.2 Previous contributors to the development of this document B.3 Research Partners B.4 Enabling funders 1. Introduction People with disabilities can face problems using online content and applications. Disabilities can be permanent, temporary, or recurring limitations. We need guidance that: identifies the barriers encountered by people with disabilities, explains what causes these barriers and who they impact, and suggests how the problems they pose can be solved. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 was designed to be technology neutral, and has stayed relevant for over 10 years. Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 has been implemented in the open source authoring tool communities (chiefly Wordpress and Drupal) with little known uptake in commercial authoring tools. User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 2.0 offers useful guidance to user agent developers and has been implemented on an individual success criterion basis. There is no known user agent that has implemented all of UAAG 2.0. 1.1 Comparison to WCAG 2 Requirements WCAG 3 builds on the WCAG 2.0 Requirements of 2006 . The WCAG 2.0 requirements are: Ensure that requirements may be applied across technologies. Ensure that the conformance requirements are clear. Design deliverables with ease of use in mind. Write to a more diverse audience. Clearly identify who benefits from accessible content. Ensure that the revision is "backwards and forward compatible". WCAG 3 wishes to advance the WCAG 2 Requirements of: applied across technologies, clear conformance, ease of use, diverse audience, and identify who benefits. WCAG 3 does not want to advance the WCAG 2 requirement: "Ensure that the revision is 'backwards and forward compatible'". The WCAG 2 Requirements are very specific to WCAG 2 and will not be advanced by WCAG 3. The intention is to include WCAG 2 content, but migrate it to a different structure and conformance model. WCAG 3 plans to migrate the content of WCAG 2.2 to WCAG 3. 1.2 WCAG 3 Scope WCAG 3 will have a broader scope than WCAG 2. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are scoped to web and to content. WCAG 3 is being designed to be able to include: Disability Needs : An improved measurement and conformance structure that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes particular attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the true/false statement success criteria of WCAG 2. Emerging Technologies : Flexibility to include emerging technologies, such as augmented/virtual reality (AR/VR/XR) and voice assistants Support for the Technologies that Impact Accessibility : Advice for all levels of the accessibility technology stack who wish to support the WCAG 3 core guidelines including: digital content , including guidance currently addressed by WCAG 2; authoring tools , such as content management systems; user agents , such as browsers and media players; assistive technologies , such as screen readers, screen magnifiers, and assistants for memory, organization, or simplification; software and web applications , including mobile apps; and operating systems and other platforms who may want advice for features to better support people with disabilities. The current project design does not intend to write separate specifications or normative requirements for the technology stack beyond digital content. The goal is to provide information that technology vendors can choose to use to improve the accessibility of their products to support the guidelines. 1.3 Silver Task Force Research The research done in 2017-2018 by the Silver Task Force, the Silver Community Group, and the research partners was used to identify the key problem statements related to the current accessibility guidelines (WCAG 2, ATAG 2 and UAAG 2). See the Silver Research Summary slides for more detailed information. These problem statements were used to identify the opportunities for WCAG 3 to address that will improve accessibility guidance. A recurring theme identified in the year of WCAG 3 research was the popularity and quality of the WCAG 2.0 guidance. Most of the opportunities identified in the research were improvements in the structure and presentation of accessibility guidance to improve usability, support more disability needs, and improve maintenance. 1.4 Large and Dynamic Sites In addition to the above research, an issue was raised about how to apply accessibility evaluation and conformance to large and dynamic websites which are updated frequently. This led to development of Challenges with Accessibility Guidelines Conformance and Testing, and Approaches for Mitigating Them . Suggestions in that document are an additional source of input to these requirements. 1.5 Design Principles and Requirements This document has two sections: a Design Principles section and a Requirements section. Requirements need to be measured or clearly demonstrated. They are used at the W3C phase of Candidate Recommendation, where the Candidate Recommendation Transition Request reports that the requirements were met. Design Principles are important statements that are less measurable, but are used to guide, shape and steer decision-making during the development process of WCAG 3. Both are essential in guiding the development of the WCAG 3 project. 2. Opportunities for WCAG 3 The Problem Statements describe areas identified during the WCAG 3 research in 2017-2018 that can be addressed in the new guidelines. Each problem statement also has an opportunity section that is the basis for the WCAG 3 Requirements. 2.1 Usability Readable : When guidelines are easier to read and understand, users – especially people in the development cycle who are less technical – are more likely to implement accessibility. When all audiences are considered in the language and terminology used in the guidelines, the likelihood increases that they will: reach a larger audience, be better understood, be easier to translate, and be interpreted as easier to implement. On-ramp for Beginners : When beginning users can develop understanding and mastery of the accessibility guidance, this leads to faster and greater acceptance of accessibility. This also creates the opportunity to convince developers and project managers to include accessibility at the beginning of a project instead of the end. Current and Future Technology Oriented : Eliminating underlying assumptions and structure that are oriented toward the historic static web and improving guidance for modern web applications can increase acceptance by developers and provide greater accessibility of web and native applications. Advocacy Tool : Usability oriented toward a broad audience for WCAG 3 can help improve the general advocacy of digital accessibility. Improving the reach of WCAG 3 can help improve the awareness of accessibility considerations. Compelling information that is contextually relevant to the standards may also aid in convincing audiences of any type. 2.2 Conformance Model There are several areas for exploration in how conformance can work. These opportunities may or may not be incorporated. They need to work together, and that interplay will be governed by the design principles. Measurable Guidance : Certain accessibility guidance is best expressed as a true/false statement. Others far less so. There are needs of people with disabilities, especially cognitive and low vision disabilities, that are better captured by a different type of measurement. WCAG 3 can include guidance (guidelines) that use different means of evaluation beyond just true/false performance or outcome statements, allowing for the inclusion of more accessibility guidance. Scope Options : WCAG 3 conformance could include web pages, websites, page sections, individual components, and conformance based on a set of tasks as defined by the author of the site or application. A task-based assessment would allow flexibility for conformance of complex applications that go beyond component/tag assessment or full-page assessment. Accessibility Supported : As the technologies advance, the lines between content, user agents, and assistive technology will continue to shift and blur. Interoperability may be affected by any number of factors outside of the control of the author and publisher of digital content. WCAG 3 can include advice to user agents and assistive technology developers. WCAG 3 does not intend to make authors responsible for interoperability problems beyond a reasonable effort. 2.3 Maintenance Flexibility : A flexible structure enables greater scaling of new methods to meet guidelines. It also allows for the expiration of outdated methods to meet guidelines. A flexible process of updating methods enables the overall guidance to keep pace with technology. Flexible participation – particularly of people with disabilities – empowers a community and enables more inclusive insights. Scaling : We intend WCAG 3 to apply to multiple contexts and multiple use cases. WCAG 3 intends to be iterative, future-friendly, and user-centric. Evolving Technology : WCAG 3 needs a flexible design that can be updated as new technologies emerge, assistive technologies improve, and changing technologies produce new barriers for people with disabilities. Accessibility guidance and all supporting documentation should anticipate common scenarios like new technology and the introduction of new modalities like surface reaction and ultrahaptics. As content technology evolves, it must be re-evaluated against assistive technology for compatibility. Likewise, as assistive technology evolves or emerges, it must be evaluated against the backward compatibility of various content technology. Governance : Utilize tools that allow interested parties to predict when issues important to them are being discussed. Maintain a backlog that reflects issues along with their status. Backwards compatibility The WCAG 3 guidelines will take a cautious approach to backwards compatibility to early versions of WCAG 3. After the first publication of WCAG 3 guidance and conformance model the guidelines aim to be backwards compatible. However, it will not be bound to backwards compatibility if a substantially more accessible outcome can be achieved. Where there are backwards-incompatible changes, the changes will be highlighted in the supplementary materials so that users of the guidelines know exactly what has changed. 3. Design Principles The WCAG 3 Design Principles are based on the requirements of WCAG 2 and build on those requirements to meet needs identified in the WCAG 3 research. Accessibility guidelines should: Support the needs of a wide range of people with disabilities and recognize that people have individual and multiple needs. Support a measurement and conformance structure that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes particular attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the true/false statement success criteria of WCAG 2. Be flexible enough to support the needs of people with disabilities and keep up with emerging technologies. The information structure allows guidance to be added or removed. Be accessible and conform to the Guidelines. Be written in plain language, as easy as possible to understand. Improve the ability to support automated testing where appropriate and provide a procedure for repeatable tests when manual testing is appropriate. Provide requirements to address functional needs, while avoiding or minimizing negative impacts on other functional needs. Include accompanying documents that provide clear, concise, and findable technical information quickly in one place. Include, where possible and appropriate, links to instruction videos, illustrations, and how-to guides. Creation of new videos and illustrations are outside the scope of the working group at this time. Normative requirements should be unambiguous so there is only one possible meaning for each requirement. The creation process for the guidelines should: Actively recruit a diverse range of people with disabilities in recognition of the importance of their contributions to accessibility standards and solutions. Review and monitor whether people are included. Continually evaluate inclusive features of available tooling and procedures. Facilitate global participation and feedback. Be data-informed and evidence-based where possible. We recognize that research and evidence are influenced by the number of people with a particular disability, by the size of the body of research, and by the difficulty in capturing data regarding some disabilities or combination of disabilities. The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible to ensure that the needs of all people with disabilities are prioritized, including needs that differ from the majority. In situations where there is no evidence or research, valid data-gathering methods should be used to obtain and evaluate information from advocacy groups, people with lived experience and other subject matter experts. Be written so the Guideline content is usable in adaptable and customizable ways. For example, WCAG 3 content is available to be extracted by users to adapt to their needs. 4. Requirements Previous W3C Accessibility Guidelines described how to make web pages accessible to people with disabilities. These guidelines provided a flexible framework that has kept the guidelines relevant for 10 years. Changing technology and changing needs of people with disabilities has shown areas where they could be improved. The requirements are drawn from the research performed by WCAG 3 to improve the guidelines, and the suggestions from the Silver Design Sprint. The WCAG 3 Requirements are high level and will be expanded and refined as Silver members move through the prototyping process. 4.1 Broad disability support WCAG 3 guidance has a structure, tests, and/or approach that allows for requirements that are not available in WCAG 2, such as (but not limited to) additional needs of people with cognitive and learning disabilities, intersectional disabilities, and limited vision. 4.2 Flexible maintenance and extensibility The informative documentation uses a process that is easy to update and maintain. The process of developing the guidance includes experts who review the guidelines to check they will work for emerging technologies and interactions. 4.3 Multiple ways to display The Guidelines can be presented in different accessible and usable ways or formats, to address the needs of different audiences. 4.4 Technology Neutral Guidance is expressed in technology-neutral terms so that it can be met using different platforms or technologies. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if specific technical advice doesn't yet exist. 4.5 Readability WCAG 3 is written using the plain language guidance from WCAG 3. The goal is for the widest possible audience to understand WCAG 3. 4.6 Regulatory Environment Requirements are written to facilitate adoption into law, regulation, or policy, since this has been shown to have major impact on practice. This includes: making the need and purpose for the requirement clear, and a clear definition of when requirements are met. 4.7 Motivation The Guidelines motivate organizations to go beyond minimal accessibility requirements with a conformance model that shows which organizations demonstrate a greater effort to improve accessibility 4.8 Scope WCAG 3 will provide guidance and a conformance model suitable for people and organizations that produce digital assets and technology of varying size and complexity. This includes large, dynamic, and complex websites. The scope of the associated informative materials will include guidance for a diverse group of stakeholders including content creators, browsers, authoring tools, assistive technologies, and more. 4.9 Self-validation The WCAG 3 guidelines document shall meet its own requirements where relevant. (Some requirements may apply to organizations or scenarios not relevant to the development of a standard.) A. Change Log A.1 Changes Prior to First Public Working Draft Moved the Opportunity for Evolving Technologies to Maintenance; added new opportunity for Flexibility in the Conformance section; and minor grammar corrections. (9 July 2018) Added headings to individual requirements (25 June 2018) Added section on Comparison to WCAG 2 (25 June 2018) Changed Problem Statements to Opportunities based on AGWG feedback and group discussion (25 June 2018) Moved Design Principle #10 to #6. (25 June 2018) Changed wording of Multiple Ways to Measure (25 June 2018) Added editor notes for Technology Neutral and Testability (25 June 2018) Added statement to Problem Statements about ATAG & UAAG research. Minor grammar fixes. (3 June 2018) Add explanatory sentence to Problem Statement intro paragraph about positive feedback on WCAG guidance and emphasis on structural and presentation improvements. Fix typo, change "situational disabilities" to "situational limitations" Add short sentences on the time line for updating the Requirements document based on meeting of Cooper, Lauriat and Spellman of 23 March 2018. Reorder the sections so that the background is first, followed by Design Principles, then Requirements Clarify the broader definition of "disabilities" based on input from public comments and group discussion. The definition sentence in the Introduction paragraph is a proposal for group discussion. Change "future" to "unanticipated" in Requirements #2 and add subsequent sentence. Change the Requirements Intro paragraph to remove the specific sentence on conformance and pass/fail tests and give greater context on the source of the Requirements. A.1.1 Changes Prior to Second Version of Requirements New requirements for Readability, Regulatory Environment, Motivation, and Scope. Added paragraph explaining the differences between Design Principles and Requirements as a result of requests from the AGWG face-to-face meeting of 11 and 12 March 2019. Added new Design Principles and Requirements and changed wording of existing Design Principles and Requirements based on feedback from AGWG in Q1 and Q2 2019 Added a new Scope section to the Introduction that clarifies that WCAG 3 plans to address Authoring Tools, User agents and Apps. (26 April 2019) Reworded Technology Neutral to bring it more in line with the original WCAG 2.0 Requirements wording. (26 April 2019) changed Design Principle 9 to more clearly show that there will not be a hierarchy of disabilities and that when there is no research, how we will address that. B. Acknowledgements Additional information about participation in the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AG WG) can be found on the Working Group home page . B.1 Contributors to the development of this document Adam Page (Invited Expert) Alastair Campbell (Gain) Alina Vayntrub (Understood.org) Andrew Kirkpatrick (Evinced Inc.) Ashley Firth (Invited Expert) Atya Ratcliff (Google LLC) Azlan Cuttilan (Invited Expert) Ben Tillyer (University of Oxford) Brian Elton (TPGi) Bruce Bailey (Invited Expert) Bryan Trogdon (Google LLC) Carrie Hall (SAP SE) Charu Pandhi (TPGi) Chuck Adams (Oracle Corporation) Claire Chang (Invited Expert) Detlev Fischer (Invited Expert) Eloisa Guerrero (Invited Expert) Eric Hind (Google LLC) Filippo Zorzi (UsableNet) Francis Storr (Intel Corporation) Frankie Wolf (Invited Expert) Gez Lemon (TetraLogical Services Ltd) Giacomo Petri (UsableNet) Glenda Sims (Deque Systems, Inc.) Graham Ritchie (Invited Expert) Gregg Vanderheiden (Invited Expert) Gundula Niemann (SAP SE) Heather Bellis (Oracle Corporation) Hidde de Vries (Logius) Illai Zeevi (Evinced Inc.) JaEun Jemma Ku (University of Illinois) Jan Jaap de Groot (Abra) Jan McSorley (Invited Expert) Jaunita Flessas (Invited Expert) Jen Goulden (Crawford Technologies) Jennifer Delisi (Invited Expert) Jeremy Katherman (Deque Systems, Inc.) Jeroen Hulscher (Logius) John Kirkwood (Invited Expert) John Rochford (Invited Expert) John Toles (Rhonda Weiss Center for Accessible IDEA Data) Jon Avila (Level Access) Jory Cunningham (Amazon) Julie Rawe (Understood.org) Kathy Eng (Invited Expert) Ken Franqueiro ( W3C ) Kevin White ( W3C ) Kimberly McGee (SAP SE) Laura Carlson (Invited Expert) Len Beasley (CVS Pharmacy, Inc.) Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum (Invited Expert) Lori Oakley (Oracle Corporation) Makoto Murata (Information Accessibility Institute) Makoto Ueki (Invited Expert) Mary Jo Mueller (IBM Corporation) Mike Beganyi (Invited Expert) Mike Gower (IBM Corporation) Patrick H. Lauke (TetraLogical Services Ltd) Poornima Badhan Subramanian (Invited Expert) Priti Rohra (BarrierBreak Solutions Private Limited) Rachael Bradley Montgomery (Library of Congress) Radostina (Ina) Tsvetkova (Invited Expert) Rain Breaw Michaels (Google LLC) Rashmi Katakwar (Invited Expert) Rayianna Daniels-Wynn (Rhonda Weiss Center for Accessible IDEA Data) Reinaldo Ferraz (NIC.br - Brazilian Network Information Center) Roland Buss (SAP SE) Ryan Romaine (Google LLC) Sailesh Panchang (Deque Systems, Inc.) Sam Hobson (Intopia) Sarah Horton (Invited Expert) Sazzad Mahamud (Google LLC) Scott O’Hara (Microsoft Corporation) Shadi Abou-Zahra (Amazon) Shawn Thompson (Shared Services Canada) Steve Faulkner (TetraLogical Services Ltd) Steve Kerr (Google LLC) Steven Hoober (Invited Expert) Sydney Coleman (Google LLC) Tamsin Ewing ( W3C ) Tayef Farrar (CVS Pharmacy, Inc.) Tiffany Burtin (Invited Expert) Todd Libby (Invited Expert) Venkata Vemuri (Oracle Corporation) Wendy Reid (Invited Expert) Wilco Fiers (Deque Systems, Inc.) B.2 Previous contributors to the development of this document Abi James, Abi Roper, Adam Page, Alastair Campbell, Alexandra Yaneva, Alice Boxhall, Alina Vayntrub, Alistair Garrison, Amani Ali, Andrew Kirkpatrick, Andrew Somers, Andy Heath, Angela Hooker, Aparna Pasi, Ashley Firth, Atya Ratcliff, Avneesh Singh, Avon Kuo, Azlan Cuttilan, Ben Tillyer, Betsy Furler, Brooks Newton, Bruce Bailey, Bryan Trogdon, Carrie Hall, Caryn Pagel, Charles Hall, Charles Nevile, Chris Loiselle, Chris McMeeking, Christian Perera, Christy Owens, Chuck Adams, Cybele Sack, Daniel Bjorge, Daniel Henderson-Ede, Darryl Lehmann, David Fazio, David MacDonald, David Sloan, David Swallow, Dean Hamack, Detlev Fischer, DJ Chase, E.A. Draffan, Eleanor Loiacono, Eric Hind, Filippo Zorzi, Francis Storr, Frankie Wolf, Frederick Boland, Garenne Bigby, Gez Lemon, Giacomo Petri, Glenda Sims, Graham Ritchie, Greg Lowney, Gregg Vanderheiden, Gundula Niemann, Hidde de Vries, Imelda Llanos, Irfan Mukhtar, Jaeil Song, JaEun Jemma Ku, Jake Abma, Jamie Herrera, Jan Jaap de Groot, Jan McSorley, Janina Sajka, Jaunita Flessas, Jaunita George, Jeanne Spellman, Jedi Lin, Jeff Kline, Jen Goulden, Jennifer Chadwick, Jennifer Delisi, Jennifer Strickland, Jennison Asuncion, Jeroen Hulscher, Jill Power, Jim Allan, Joe Cronin, John Foliot, John Kirkwood, John McNabb, John Northup, John Rochford, John Toles, Jon Avila, Jory Cunningham, Joshue O’Connor, Judy Brewer, Julie Rawe, Justine Pascalides, Karen Schriver, Katharina Herzog, Kathleen Wahlbin, Katie Haritos-Shea, Katy Brickley, Kelsey Collister, Ken Franqueiro, Kevin White, Kim Dirks, Kimberly McGee, Kimberly Patch, Laura Carlson, Laura Miller, Len Beasley, Léonie Watson, Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum, Lori Oakley, Lori Samuels, Lucy Greco, Luis Garcia, Lyn Muldrow, Makoto Ueki, Marc Johlic, Marie Bergeron, Mark Tanner, Mary Ann Jawili, Mary Jo Mueller, Matt Garrish, Matthew King, Melanie Philipp, Melina Maria Möhnle, Michael Cooper, Michael Crabb, Michael Elledge, Michael Fairchild, Michael Weiss, Michellanne Li, Michelle Lana, Mike Beganyi, Mike Crabb, Mike Gower, Nat Tarnoff, Nicaise Dogbo, Nicholas Trefonides, Nina Krauß, Omar Bonilla, Patrick H. Lauke, Paul Adam, Peter Korn, Peter McNally, Pietro Cirrincione, Poornima Badhan Subramanian, Rachael Bradley Montgomery, Rain Breaw Michaels, Ralph de Rooij, Rashmi Katakwar, Rebecca Monteleone, Rick Boardman, Roberto Scano, Roldon Brown, Ruoxi Ran, Ruth Spina, Ryan Hemphill, Sailesh Panchang, Sarah Horton, Sarah Pulis, Scott Hollier, Scott O’Hara, Shadi Abou-Zahra, Shannon Urban, Shari Butler, Shawn Henry, Shawn Lauriat, Shawn Thompson, Sheri Byrne-Haber, Shrirang Sahasrabudhe, Shwetank Dixit, Stacey Lumley, Stein Erik Skotkjerra, Stephen Repsher, Steve Faulkner, Steve Lee, Sukriti Chadha, Susi Pallero, Suzanne Taylor, sweta wakodkar, Takayuki Watanabe, Tananda Darling, Theo Hale, Thomas Logan, Thomas Westin, Tiffany Burtin, Tim Boland, Todd Libby, Todd Marquis Boutin, Victoria Clark, Wayne Dick, Wendy Chisholm, Wendy Reid, Wilco Fiers. B.3 Research Partners These researchers selected a Silver research question, did the research, and graciously allowed us to use the results. David Sloan and Sarah Horton, The Paciello Group, WCAG Success Criteria Usability Study Scott Hollier et al, Curtin University, Internet of Things (IoT) Education: Implications for Students with Disabilities Peter McNally, Bentley University, WCAG Use by UX Professionals Dr. Michael Crabb, University of Dundee, Student research papers on Silver topics Eleanor Loiacono, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Web Accessibility Perceptions (Student project from Worcester Polytechnic Institute) B.4 Enabling funders This publication has been funded in part with U.S. Federal funds from the Health and Human Services, National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), initially under contract number ED-OSE-10-C-0067, then under contract number HHSP23301500054C, and now under HHS75P00120P00168. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. ↑