WCAG 2.2 AA changes scans by introducing new success criteria that scanners must account for, though the practical impact on automated detection is limited. Most of the new criteria added in 2.2 require human judgment to evaluate accurately. Scans updated for 2.2 will flag a small subset of new issues programmatically, while the majority still falls into the 75% of WCAG that scans cannot reliably assess.
| Key Point | What It Means |
|---|---|
| Backwards Compatible | WCAG 2.2 includes everything in 2.1. Scans tuned for 2.1 still apply, with new checks layered on top. |
| New AA Criteria | Several new success criteria were added at Level AA, covering focus appearance, dragging movements, target size, and authentication. |
| Scan Coverage | Automated scans detect approximately 25% of accessibility issues. The 2.2 additions did not meaningfully change that ratio. |
| Manual Evaluation | Most 2.2 additions require contextual review by an accessibility professional to confirm conformance. |
How WCAG 2.2 Builds on 2.1
WCAG 2.2 is backwards compatible with 2.1. Content that meets 2.2 also meets 2.1. For scan engines, this means the existing rule set carries forward.
Vendors update their checks to reflect new criteria rather than rebuilding from scratch. The version change is incremental, not structural.
Pages that conformed to 2.1 AA before continue to conform to most of 2.2 AA, with attention now required on the additions.
New AA Criteria Introduced in WCAG 2.2
WCAG 2.2 added new Level AA success criteria. Each one targets a real-world usability concern that came into focus after 2.1 was published.
- Focus Not Obscured (Minimum): When a component receives keyboard focus, it must not be entirely hidden by other content.
- Dragging Movements: Any function operated by dragging must also be operable through a single pointer interaction without dragging.
- Target Size (Minimum): Pointer targets must generally be at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels, with defined exceptions.
- Consistent Help: Help mechanisms repeated across pages must appear in a consistent location.
- Redundant Entry: Information already entered in a process should not be required again unless re-entry is essential.
- Accessible Authentication (Minimum): Cognitive function tests, like remembering a password, cannot be the only way to authenticate, except under specific conditions.
What Scans Can Detect from the 2.2 Additions
Some of the new criteria lend themselves to programmatic checks. Target Size can be partially evaluated by measuring the rendered dimensions of interactive elements. Focus Not Obscured can sometimes be flagged when overlapping fixed elements are detected during simulated keyboard traversal.
Even when a scanner identifies a candidate issue under these criteria, the result often needs human confirmation. Spacing exceptions, inline contexts, and equivalent alternatives all reduce the certainty of an automated flag.
What Still Requires Human Evaluation
Most of the 2.2 additions sit outside what scans can reliably evaluate. Dragging Movements requires verifying whether an alternative single-tap interaction exists and works. Consistent Help requires comparing multiple pages and judging whether placement is meaningfully consistent.
Redundant Entry depends on understanding the flow of a multi-step process. Accessible Authentication requires evaluating whether alternatives to memory-based credentials are present and functional.
These criteria are conceptual rather than purely structural. A scanner can read the DOM, but it cannot reason about whether a help link is in a consistent location across a checkout flow or whether an authentication method qualifies as a cognitive function test.
How to Approach 2.2 in a Scanning Program
Organizations moving from 2.1 AA to 2.2 AA should confirm that their scanning configuration has been updated to include checks for the new criteria where automation applies. Coverage gains will be modest. The 25% baseline for what scans detect remains the working number.
The larger shift is in the audit. A 2.2 AA evaluation conducted by an accessibility professional examines each new criterion in context, including the ones a scanner cannot meaningfully assess. Pairing scheduled scans with periodic audits remains the standard approach for confirming conformance under the updated standard.