WCAG 2.2vsEN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services
See exactly how WCAG 2.2 controls map to EN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
WCAG 2.2 maps to EN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services with 62% coverage across 60 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 97 WCAG 2.2 controls identifies 37 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Superseded batch representation – WCAG 2.2.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 97 controls analysed | 1,113 frameworks | 315K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 163 control mappings across 14 domains. Sign up to explore all 315K+ mappings across 1,113 frameworks.
Principle 1 Perceivable: Guideline 1.1 Text Alternatives – WCAG 2.2(3 mappings)
Principle 1 Perceivable: Guideline 1.2 Time-based Media – WCAG 2.2(15 mappings)
Principle 1 Perceivable: Guideline 1.3 Adaptable – WCAG 2.2(2 mappings)
+143 more mappings
Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 1,113 frameworks.
Create Free Account →Free forever, no credit card required
A WCAG 2.2 to EN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which EN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services controls your existing WCAG 2.2 work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 62% in the header counts how many WCAG 2.2 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many EN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other WCAG 2.2 comparisons
Other EN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
Cross-framework mappings across 1,113 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 1,113 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (315K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between WCAG 2.2 and EN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services?
WCAG 2.2 has 97 controls across its framework, while EN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services covers 146 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 60 overlapping controls (62% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Superseded batch representation – WCAG 2.2, where 5 WCAG 2.2 controls have no direct EN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services equivalent.
How many controls map between WCAG 2.2 and EN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services?
Of 97 total WCAG 2.2 controls, 60 map directly to EN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services controls, representing 62% coverage. The remaining 37 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping WCAG 2.2 to EN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services?
37 WCAG 2.2 controls have no direct equivalent in EN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services. The highest concentration of gaps is in Superseded batch representation – WCAG 2.2 with 5 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between WCAG 2.2 and EN 301 549 V4.1.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services?
The domain with the highest gap count is Superseded batch representation – WCAG 2.2 (5 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are judged interpretations, grounded in the source text of both frameworks, and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.