ContrastRadarAPCA is often described as a candidate contrast method for WCAG 3. That description is easy to shorten into a much stronger claim: that APCA is already the WCAG 3 contrast test. The current W3C documents do not support that conclusion.
As of August 2026, WCAG 3 is an incomplete Working Draft. Its glossary labels the contrast ratio test as Exploratory and says that the contrast algorithm used in WCAG 3 is yet to be determined. APCA remains useful for design analysis, but it is not a finalized WCAG 3 conformance requirement.
The short answer
APCA is a candidate for future contrast guidance, not the current W3C conformance calculation. WCAG 2.2 remains the published standard to use when a project, policy, or delivery checklist asks for WCAG 2 contrast. Its text thresholds remain 4.5:1 for normal text and 3:1 for large text under Success Criterion 1.4.3, subject to the criterion's exceptions.
The APCA documentation describes its method as a candidate for WCAG 3 and also as part of an independently developing readability criterion. Candidate and independent are important words here. Neither turns an APCA Lc value into a WCAG 3 pass or fail today.
What changed in the March 2026 draft
W3C published an updated WCAG 3 Working Draft on March 3, 2026. The update moves material that has reached Developing status into the published draft, while less settled work remains in the Editor's Draft. W3C also warns that the final requirements will differ from the current text as requirements are added, combined, edited, or removed.
The draft contains developing contrast-related requirements, but the calculation behind its contrast ratio test is still marked Exploratory. That distinction matters: a draft can establish that contrast must be addressed before it has selected the algorithm, thresholds, and complete testing method that will define the final requirement.
Where APCA fits in a review today
APCA reports perceptual lightness contrast as Lc and accounts for polarity. Its guidance changes with the intended text size and weight, so it can surface typography concerns that a single polarity-independent ratio does not describe in the same way.
That makes APCA useful as an additional design signal. It does not make it a substitute for the standard named by a current conformance target. A practical review can preserve the WCAG 2.2 ratio for the formal requirement and record APCA separately when the team wants perceptual guidance.
How ContrastRadar keeps the claims separate
ContrastRadar 1.0.0 can display WCAG 2.2 and APCA 0.1.9 results together for text detected in a screenshot. The WCAG view is the conformance-oriented screening reference. The APCA view is labeled as guidance because a screenshot does not reliably provide the authored font size and weight needed to apply typography-dependent advice.
The app marks an absolute Lc below 75 as an APCA risk. This is a conservative screenshot-review rule used by ContrastRadar, not a claim that every value below 75 fails APCA or WCAG 3. The highlighted region, estimated colors, weaker local value, and confidence remain visible so the reviewer can decide what needs source-level verification.
A workflow that will survive the standards changing
Keep the target standard beside every result. If the requirement says WCAG 2.2, report the WCAG ratio and verify the actual text size, weight, state, and exceptions in the source. If APCA is used during design, record the Lc value, polarity, and known typography rather than reducing it to a generic pass badge.
Revisit this decision when W3C publishes another WCAG 3 draft or moves the contrast method beyond Exploratory status. Until then, the accurate statement is narrow: APCA is a candidate and an independent readability method; WCAG 3 has not yet selected its final contrast algorithm.