--- title: Evaluating a Success Criterion | daily.dev description: A practical, ordered research workflow for resolving ambiguity when interpreting a WCAG Success Criterion during an accessibility evaluation, review, or audit.... canonical: https://daily.dev/posts/evaluating-a-success-criterion-qmktyrgoh twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:site: @dailydotdev og:type: website og:site_name: daily.dev og:title: Evaluating a Success Criterion | daily.dev og:description: A practical, ordered research workflow for resolving ambiguity when interpreting a WCAG Success Criterion during an accessibility evaluation, review, or audit.... og:url: https://daily.dev/posts/evaluating-a-success-criterion-qmktyrgoh og:image: https://api.daily.dev/og/posts/qMKtYRgOH.png og:image:alt: Evaluating a Success Criterion og:image:width: 1200 og:image:height: 630 og:locale: en --- > ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://daily.dev/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Evaluating a Success Criterion **[Adrian Roselli](https://daily.dev/sources/adrianroselli)** · 3 min read · 0 upvotes · 0 comments ## Summary A practical, ordered research workflow for resolving ambiguity when interpreting a WCAG Success Criterion during an accessibility evaluation, review, or audit. The recommended sequence: read the normative WCAG spec text, then the W3C Understanding document, then Techniques documents, then WCAG GitHub issues, then pull requests (including unmerged ones), then GitHub discussions, and finally trusted experts' blogs while being wary of agenda-driven or loophole-justifying interpretations. Emphasizes testing regardless of the answer found, since browser/AT support and user expectations shift, and notes that sometimes following the W3C's own guidance can produce a worse outcome, justifying a deliberate deviation. ## Full article daily.dev links to this article rather than hosting it. Read it at the original source: ## Questions this post answers ### How should I interpret an ambiguous WCAG success criterion when auditing a website? Work through sources in order of authority: first the normative WCAG 2.2 spec text, then the W3C Understanding document for that criterion, then the Techniques documents (noting some are outdated), then closed WCAG GitHub issues and pull requests for decided interpretations, then GitHub discussions, and finally trusted experts' blogs while avoiding agenda-driven interpretations or those justifying bare-minimum loophole compliance. _daily.dev helps accessibility auditors keep up with evolving WCAG guidance and interpretation debates._ ### Where can I find how the W3C WCAG working group has resolved disputed interpretations of a success criterion? Check the WCAG GitHub repository's issues and pull requests, paying attention to dates, linked items, embedded meeting minutes, and decisions. Closed issues often represent settled answers, and even unmerged pull requests can contain valuable discussion explaining why an interpretation was rejected. _Developers resolving WCAG ambiguity can track spec discussions and interpretation debates on daily.dev._ ## Similar posts on daily.dev - [How to Build More Accessible Websites with WCAG 2.2](https://daily.dev/posts/how-to-build-more-accessible-websites-with-wcag-2-2-ionjqlod0) · freeCodeCamp · 2 upvotes · 0 comments --- Tags: [#webdev](https://daily.dev/tags/webdev), [#accessibility](https://daily.dev/tags/accessibility) [View this post on daily.dev](https://daily.dev/posts/evaluating-a-success-criterion-qmktyrgoh) ```json {"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https://daily.dev/#organization","name":"daily.dev","url":"https://daily.dev","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://daily.dev/apple-touch-icon.png","width":180,"height":180},"sameAs":["https://twitter.com/dailydotdev","https://github.com/dailydotdev","https://www.linkedin.com/company/daily-dev-ltd"]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://daily.dev/#website","url":"https://daily.dev","name":"daily.dev","publisher":{"@id":"https://daily.dev/#organization"},"potentialAction":{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https://daily.dev/search?q={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"TechArticle","headline":"Evaluating a Success Criterion","url":"https://daily.dev/posts/evaluating-a-success-criterion-qmktyrgoh","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/evaluating-a-success-criterion-qmktyrgoh"},"datePublished":"2026-09-01T13:48:55.533Z","dateModified":"2026-09-01T13:49:15.559Z","description":"A practical, ordered research workflow for resolving ambiguity when interpreting a WCAG Success Criterion during an accessibility evaluation, review, or audit....","image":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/s--0_ODbtD2--/f_auto/v1722860399/public/Placeholder%2008","thumbnailUrl":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/s--0_ODbtD2--/f_auto/v1722860399/public/Placeholder%2008","isAccessibleForFree":true,"articleSection":"Adrian Roselli","inLanguage":"en","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"daily.dev","url":"https://daily.dev","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://daily.dev/apple-touch-icon.png","width":180,"height":180}},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Adrian Roselli","logo":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/s--srPC5zE---/f_auto/v1710012549/logos/adrianroselli","url":"https://daily.dev/sources/adrianroselli"},"commentCount":0,"discussionUrl":"https://daily.dev/posts/evaluating-a-success-criterion-qmktyrgoh","interactionStatistic":[{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"LikeAction"},"userInteractionCount":0},{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"CommentAction"},"userInteractionCount":0}],"keywords":"webdev,accessibility","timeRequired":"PT3M"} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://daily.dev"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Adrian Roselli","item":"https://daily.dev/sources/adrianroselli"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Evaluating a Success Criterion"}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/evaluating-a-success-criterion-qmktyrgoh#faq","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"How should I interpret an ambiguous WCAG success criterion when auditing a website?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Work through sources in order of authority: first the normative WCAG 2.2 spec text, then the W3C Understanding document for that criterion, then the Techniques documents (noting some are outdated), then closed WCAG GitHub issues and pull requests for decided interpretations, then GitHub discussions, and finally trusted experts' blogs while avoiding agenda-driven interpretations or those justifying bare-minimum loophole compliance. daily.dev helps accessibility auditors keep up with evolving WCAG guidance and interpretation debates."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Where can I find how the W3C WCAG working group has resolved disputed interpretations of a success criterion?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Check the WCAG GitHub repository's issues and pull requests, paying attention to dates, linked items, embedded meeting minutes, and decisions. Closed issues often represent settled answers, and even unmerged pull requests can contain valuable discussion explaining why an interpretation was rejected. Developers resolving WCAG ambiguity can track spec discussions and interpretation debates on daily.dev."}}]} ```