Skip to main content
Accessibility.com, LLC
Category: Compliance and Reporting

Not Applicable

Also known as: N/A, N/A, n/a, N.A., Not Available
Simply put

"Not applicable" is a term used to indicate that a particular condition, requirement, or statement does not apply or is irrelevant in a specific situation. It commonly appears in forms, surveys, tables, and documents, often abbreviated as "N/A." The same abbreviation is sometimes also used to mean "not available," so its intended meaning depends on context.

Formal definition

"Not applicable" (commonly abbreviated "N/A," and sometimes written "n/a" or "N.A.") is a notation used to signal that a given condition, requirement, field, or statement does not apply to the case at hand and is therefore intentionally left unaddressed. It is frequently used in forms, surveys, legal documents, tables, and lists to distinguish a deliberately irrelevant entry from one that was merely omitted. Practitioners should note that the abbreviation "N/A" is ambiguous because it may also stand for "not available," "not assessed," or "no answer"; interface and documentation designers are advised to clarify the intended meaning to avoid confusion, particularly in technical applications where data may be temporarily unavailable rather than genuinely inapplicable.

Why it matters

The abbreviation "N/A" is deceptively simple but carries real ambiguity that can affect accessibility, data quality, and user comprehension. Because the same notation may stand for "not applicable," "not available," "not assessed," or "no answer," a reader cannot always determine whether an entry was deliberately excluded because it was irrelevant, or whether the information simply could not be obtained. In forms, surveys, tables, and legal documents, this distinction can materially change how the content is interpreted.

For users of assistive technology, unclear or unlabeled "N/A" entries can be especially confusing. When a screen reader encounters a bare "N/A" in a table cell or form field without surrounding context, the user may not be able to tell whether a value is missing, does not apply to them, or was withheld. Distinguishing a deliberately irrelevant entry from one that was merely omitted helps all users, including those relying on assistive technology, understand the intended meaning rather than guessing.

Because "N/A" appears so frequently across interfaces and documents, small inconsistencies in how it is used can compound into broader comprehension problems. Interface and documentation designers who clarify the intended meaning, particularly in technical applications where data may be temporarily unavailable rather than genuinely inapplicable, reduce the risk of misinterpretation for everyone who reads the content.

Who it's relevant to

UX and Interface Designers
Designers who build forms, tables, and data displays decide how empty or inapplicable states are labeled. Choosing between "not applicable" and "not available," and spelling out the intended meaning rather than relying on a bare "N/A," helps users understand whether a value is irrelevant, missing, or temporarily unavailable, particularly in technical applications.
Content and Documentation Authors
Writers producing surveys, legal documents, and reference tables frequently use "N/A" to mark deliberately irrelevant entries. Because the abbreviation can carry several meanings, documentation authors are advised to clarify the intended sense so readers can distinguish a purposefully excluded entry from one that was merely omitted.
Accessibility Practitioners
Those evaluating digital content should consider how "N/A" notations are conveyed to users of assistive technology. Unlabeled or context-free abbreviations in table cells or form fields can be difficult to interpret, so practitioners look for clear meaning and adequate context in how inapplicable or unavailable states are presented.
Developers of Data-Driven Applications
Engineers building technical applications must decide what to display when data is temporarily unavailable versus genuinely inapplicable. Treating these as distinct states, rather than collapsing both into a single ambiguous "N/A," supports clearer communication and more accurate interpretation of the underlying data.

Inside N/A

Not Applicable (N/A) status
A rating used in accessibility evaluations to indicate that a particular WCAG success criterion or requirement does not apply to the content being assessed, typically because the content lacks the feature the criterion addresses (for example, a page with no audio content marked N/A for audio-related criteria).
Distinction from Pass or Fail
Unlike a Pass (the criterion is met) or a Fail (the criterion is not met), Not Applicable signals that the criterion is out of scope for the specific content. It should not be used as a substitute for testing where the relevant feature is actually present.
Use in conformance reporting
Reporting formats such as the WCAG-EM approach and documentation like the Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) commonly using the VPAT template include Not Applicable as a defined outcome, generally requiring a rationale explaining why the criterion does not apply.
Scope dependency
Whether a criterion is Not Applicable depends on the defined evaluation scope, the WCAG version being assessed, and the specific technologies and content types in use. A criterion may be N/A for one page or component and applicable for another.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about N/A.

Does marking a success criterion "Not Applicable" mean my content passed that requirement?
No. "Not Applicable" and "Pass" are distinct outcomes. A "Not Applicable" result means the content being evaluated does not contain the type of element or feature the success criterion addresses, so the criterion has no basis on which to apply. A "Pass" means applicable content was present and met the criterion. Conflating the two can misrepresent your conformance picture, so most evaluation methodologies record them separately.
If many criteria are marked "Not Applicable," does that make my site more accessible or reduce my legal exposure?
Not inherently. A high count of "Not Applicable" results simply reflects the nature of the content evaluated, not the quality of the accessibility work. It does not improve usability for people with disabilities on the criteria that do apply, and it does not by itself reduce legal risk. Conformance, usability, and legal compliance are separate considerations, and this guidance is not legal advice; consult qualified legal counsel regarding your specific situation.
How do I decide whether a success criterion should be marked "Not Applicable"?
Generally, a criterion is marked "Not Applicable" when the page or component under evaluation contains none of the content types that the criterion governs. For example, a criterion addressing captions for prerecorded audio would commonly be "Not Applicable" to a page with no audio or video. Review the specific success criterion's scope as published by the W3C to confirm what content triggers its applicability before recording the result.
Should I document why I marked a criterion "Not Applicable"?
Yes, documenting the rationale is a widely recommended practice. Recording why applicable content was absent supports transparency, helps reviewers verify the determination, and provides a defensible record if the evaluation is later questioned. This is often captured in conformance reporting artifacts alongside pass and fail results.
How is "Not Applicable" typically reflected in a conformance report such as an accessibility conformance report or VPAT-style document?
Such reports commonly provide a distinct status option for criteria that do not apply, separate from supported or not supported designations, often with a remarks field for explanation. Keeping this status distinct helps readers understand which criteria were actively evaluated as passing versus those that had no applicable content to assess.
Can a criterion's "Not Applicable" status change over time?
Yes. Applicability depends on the content present at the time of evaluation. If content is later added, such as introducing video, audio, forms, or interactive components, a criterion previously marked "Not Applicable" may become applicable and require reassessment. Because content and features evolve, periodic re-evaluation is generally recommended rather than relying on a one-time determination.

Common misconceptions

Marking a criterion Not Applicable improves or contributes to a conformance score.
Not Applicable generally means the criterion is out of scope rather than satisfied. It should not be treated as equivalent to a Pass, and using it to inflate apparent conformance can misrepresent the accessibility of the content.
If a criterion seems irrelevant it can be marked Not Applicable without documentation.
Recognized reporting practices commonly call for a clear rationale explaining why a criterion does not apply. An undocumented N/A can undermine the credibility of a conformance claim and make results difficult to verify.
A criterion that is Not Applicable today will remain Not Applicable.
Applicability depends on the content and features present. As content changes, new media, forms, or interactive components can bring previously N/A criteria into scope, so evaluations may need to be repeated when content is updated.

Best practices

Reserve Not Applicable for criteria where the relevant feature or content type is genuinely absent, and use Pass or Fail wherever the feature exists.
Document a specific rationale for each Not Applicable determination so reviewers can understand and verify the reasoning.
Define and record the evaluation scope, WCAG version, and technologies assessed, since applicability can differ across pages, components, and versions.
Re-review Not Applicable determinations when content, features, or the evaluation scope change, as new elements may bring criteria into scope.
Combine manual and assistive technology testing with automated checks before concluding a criterion is Not Applicable, since automated tools detect only a portion of issues.
Treat Not Applicable ratings as a documentation and scoping decision, not a shortcut, and consult qualified legal counsel where conformance claims may carry compliance implications.