WCAG 2.0 defines accessibility principles and testable criteria; a public claim must identify the pages, processes and technologies within scope.
What a WCAG 2.0 conformance claim means
WCAG 2.0 organizes web accessibility under four principles: perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. Its success criteria are testable at Levels A, AA and AAA. A valid conformance statement needs a defined page scope and cannot be inferred from a single component, automated score or accessibility overlay.[S1]
WCAG 2.0 organizes accessibility under four principles: perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. Conformance is determined against testable success criteria at Level A, AA or AAA and applies to complete web pages. For an education service, the result therefore depends on the declared level and scope, including the pages and processes needed to complete a learning task.[S1]
Principles, success criteria and complete pages
Section 5 requires satisfaction of the selected level, complete-page conformance, complete processes, accessibility-supported use of technologies and non-interference. Evaluation evidence can combine automated checks, code inspection, keyboard operation, assistive-technology testing and user testing, with each failure tied to a success criterion.[S1]
Section 5 of the Recommendation is material to any public claim. A conforming page satisfies every requirement at the claimed level, and a complete process cannot exclude a non-conforming step. Evidence normally combines code inspection, interaction testing, assistive-technology use and review of content such as alternatives, headings, labels and error handling. The record needs the tested version, browser and assistive-technology conditions because later changes can alter the result.[S1]
A conformance file can retain the page inventory, sample rationale, success criteria tested, failures, reproduction steps and resolution evidence. Re-testing is needed after a material template, component or content change. Public claims remain bounded by the evidence: a Level AA statement for named pages cannot be presented as Level AAA or as coverage of mobile applications and documents that were not examined.[S1]
Defining the education service under test
WCAG 2.0 concerns web content. A learning service can also include native applications, downloadable documents, video, authentication, payment and third-party content that require separate scope decisions. Applicable law may select a particular standard or add duties beyond WCAG.[S1]
An institutional website may contain public information, authenticated learning, assessment, payment, support and third-party content. These functions can have different owners, yet a learner experiences them as one service. A valid scope statement identifies domains, templates, mobile presentations, documents, media and embedded components. Content outside the claim remains expressly excluded rather than silently treated as conforming.[S1]
Why isolated checks are insufficient
Automated tools detect only a subset of failures. Passing selected pages does not establish complete-process conformance, and technical conformance does not prove that content is educationally understandable or that accommodation requests are handled effectively.[S1]
Automated scanning detects only part of WCAG conformance and cannot determine every question of meaning, sequence or usable interaction. A sample can establish findings about the sampled pages but not every dynamic state. WCAG also does not by itself decide usability, educational suitability or compliance with a particular law. Those conclusions require their own criteria and evidence.[S1]
WCAG evidence within an ICEQC review
ICEQC records WCAG 2.0 as an external technical recommendation. Its use as evidence does not indicate W3C certification or endorsement. The historical page is not linked to a later ICEQC provision.
ICEQC analysis may treat WCAG 2.0 results as technical evidence for accessibility questions within a defined certification scope. The W3C Recommendation retains its own conformance model. This historical article neither creates an ICEQC threshold nor links a standard published at a later point.