Readiness check
Your last audit was written against WCAG 2.1.
EN 301 549 V4.1.1 was published on 2 September 2026 and adopts WCAG 2.2. It is scheduled for citation in the Official Journal near the end of 2026, the point at which it replaces V3.2.1. Six success criteria arrive at levels A and AA. A scanner can check one of them. This page is about the other five.
Check a page free Why this date, and what moves it
No install, no account, no terminal. Every result shows two columns: what fails today under V3.2.1, and what the same page looks like once V4.1.1 is cited.
What you will have to do by hand
Automated testing measures geometry, contrast and markup. Five of the six criteria arriving are judgements about behaviour, and nothing in the page source reveals them. Each of these needs a person, sitting with your product:
| Criterion | Level | Who can check it | What the check actually is |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5.8 Target Size | AA | A scanner | Measure every control against the minimum hit area. |
| 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured | AA | A person | Tab through the page and watch whether a sticky header or cookie bar covers the control that just took focus. |
| 2.5.7 Dragging Movements | AA | A person | Find every drag interaction, then confirm each one can also be done with a single pointer. |
| 3.2.6 Consistent Help | A | A person | Compare where help appears across several pages, and judge whether it is the same help in the same place. |
| 3.3.7 Redundant Entry | A | A person | Complete a multi-step form and notice anything it asks for twice. |
| 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication | AA | A person | Judge whether your login imposes a cognitive function test with no alternative. |
This is the part vendors leave out. A tool reporting a clean WCAG 2.2 result has checked one criterion in six and said nothing about the other five. It is not lying about what it found; it is quiet about what it never looked at.
Our scanner prints the five it cannot evaluate, on every result, above the findings. A green result from us reads as a starting point, because that is what it is.
One thing to take off the list
4.1.1 Parsing leaves the standard at citation — and it already cannot be failed. W3C errata of 21 September 2023 added a note to WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 that it “should be considered as always satisfied for any content using HTML or XML”.
So fixing duplicate id attributes buys you no conformance,
today or later. If a report has put that on your roadmap, it can come off.
The full explanation is in the article.
Have the whole site checked, €290
Up to 200 pages crawled and mapped to EN 301 549 clauses, ranked by regulatory exposure, delivered as a dated PDF you can forward to whoever asked, with a draft accessibility statement and a fix list in priority order. Both columns: today, and after citation. Two working days.
What it is not. It is automated testing done thoroughly and written up by a person. Nobody tests your site with a screen reader, tabs your checkout, or judges your login against 3.3.8. Automated testing detects roughly 30 to 40 percent of WCAG failures, and five of the six criteria arriving sit in the part it cannot reach. If you need those five covered, you need a manual audit, and it costs more than this from people who do it properly.
Before you act on any of it
- Citation is a scheduled milestone, not a passed law. V4.1.1 is published but not yet cited; estimates for the citation date run from late November to mid-December 2026 and could slip further. An obligation begins only when a version is cited in the Official Journal. Until then the harmonised standard is V3.2.1, which adopts WCAG 2.1.
- Anyone telling you WCAG 2.2 is legally required today is describing next year as though it were this one.
- We are not a certification body, no report we produce is a certificate, and nothing here is legal advice.
- Curbcut is not affiliated with, endorsed by or accredited by ETSI, CEN, CENELEC or the European Commission.