Rapid Weaver 3.2.1 serial key or number

W3C Recommendation

This version:

https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/

Latest published version:

https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/

Latest editor's draft:

https://w3c.github.io/wcag/21/guidelines/

Implementation report:

https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/implementation-report/

Previous version:

https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/PR-WCAG21-20180424/

Previous Recommendation:

https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/

Editors:

Andrew Kirkpatrick (Adobe)

Joshue O Connor (Invited Expert, InterAccess)

Alastair Campbell (Nomensa)

Michael Cooper (W3C)

WCAG 2.0 Editors (until December 2008):

Ben Caldwell (Trace R&D Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Loretta Guarino Reid (Google, Inc.)

Gregg Vanderheiden (Trace R&D Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Wendy Chisholm (W3C)

John Slatin (Accessibility Institute, University of Texas at Austin)

Jason White (University of Melbourne)

Please check the errata for any errors or issues reported since publication.

See also translations.

This document is also available in non-normative formats, available from Alternate Versions of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1.

Copyright © 2017-2018 W3C^® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio, Beihang). W3Cliability, trademark and document use rules apply.

---

Abstract

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 covers a wide range of recommendations for making Web content more accessible. Following these guidelines will make content more accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including accommodations for blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, and combinations of these, and some accommodation for learning disabilities and cognitive limitations; but will not address every user need for people with these disabilities. These guidelines address accessibility of web content on desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile devices. Following these guidelines will also often make Web content more usable to users in general.

WCAG 2.1 success criteria are written as testable statements that are not technology-specific. Guidance about satisfying the success criteria in specific technologies, as well as general information about interpreting the success criteria, is provided in separate documents. See Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview for an introduction and links to WCAG technical and educational material.

WCAG 2.1 extends Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [WCAG20], which was published as a W3C Recommendation December 2008. Content that conforms to WCAG 2.1 also conforms to WCAG 2.0. The WG intends that for policies requiring conformance to WCAG 2.0, WCAG 2.1 can provide an alternate means of conformance. The publication of WCAG 2.1 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0. While WCAG 2.0 remains a W3C Recommendation, the W3C advises the use of WCAG 2.1 to maximize future applicability of accessibility efforts. The W3C also encourages use of the most current version of WCAG when developing or updating Web accessibility policies.

Status of This Document

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at https://www.w3.org/TR/.

This is a Recommendation of WCAG 2.1 by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group.

This document has been reviewed by W3C Members, by software developers, and by other W3C groups and interested parties, and is endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited from another document. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web.

By publishing this Recommendation, W3C expects the functionality specified in this Recommendation will not be affected by changes to CSS Values and Units Module Level 3 or by Pointer Events Level 2. The Working Group will continue to track these specifications.

To comment, file an issue in the W3C WCAG GitHub repository. The Working Group requests that public comments be filed as new issues, one issue per discrete comment. It is free to create a GitHub account to file issues. If filing issues in GitHub is not feasible, send email to public-agwg-comments@w3.org (comment archive). Comments received on the WCAG 2.1 Recommendation cannot result in changes to this version of the guidelines, but may be addressed in errata or future versions of WCAG. The Working Group does not plan to make formal responses to comments. A list of issues filed as well as Archives of the AG WG mailing list discussions are publicly available, and future work undertaken by the Working Group may address comments received on this document.

This document was published by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group as a Recommendation.

Please see the Working Group's implementation report.

This document has been reviewed by W3C Members, by software developers, and by other W3C groups and interested parties, and is endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited from another document. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web.

This document was produced by a group operating under the W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.

This document is governed by the 1 February 2018 W3C Process Document.

Introduction

This section is non-normative.

0.1 Background on WCAG 2§

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 defines how to make Web content more accessible to people with disabilities. Accessibility involves a wide range of disabilities, including visual, auditory, physical, speech, cognitive, language, learning, and neurological disabilities. Although these guidelines cover a wide range of issues, they are not able to address the needs of people with all types, degrees, and combinations of disability. These guidelines also make Web content more usable by older individuals with changing abilities due to aging and often improve usability for users in general.

WCAG 2.1 is developed through the W3C process in cooperation with individuals and organizations around the world, with a goal of providing a shared standard for Web content accessibility that meets the needs of individuals, organizations, and governments internationally. WCAG 2.1 builds on WCAG 2.0 [WCAG20], which in turn built on WCAG 1.0 [WAI-WEBCONTENT] and is designed to apply broadly to different Web technologies now and in the future, and to be testable with a combination of automated testing and human evaluation. For an introduction to WCAG, see the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview.

Significant challenges were encountered in defining additional criteria to address cognitive, language, and learning disabilities, including a short timeline for development as well as challenges in reaching consensus on testability, implementability, and international considerations of proposals. Work will carry on in this area in future versions of WCAG. We encourage authors to refer to our supplemental guidance on improving inclusion for people with disabilities, including learning and cognitive disabilities, people with low-vision, and more.

Web accessibility depends not only on accessible content but also on accessible Web browsers and other user agents. Authoring tools also have an important role in Web accessibility. For an overview of how these components of Web development and interaction work together, see:

0.2 WCAG 2 Layers of Guidance§

The individuals and organizations that use WCAG vary widely and include Web designers and developers, policy makers, purchasing agents, teachers, and students. In order to meet the varying needs of this audience, several layers of guidance are provided including overall principles, general guidelines, testable success criteria and a rich collection of sufficient techniques, advisory techniques, and documented common failures with examples, resource links and code.

• Principles - At the top are four principles that provide the foundation for Web accessibility: perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust. See also Understanding the Four Principles of Accessibility.

• Guidelines - Under the principles are guidelines. The 13 guidelines provide the basic goals that authors should work toward in order to make content more accessible to users with different disabilities. The guidelines are not testable, but provide the framework and overall objectives to help authors understand the success criteria and better implement the techniques.

• Success Criteria - For each guideline, testable success criteria are provided to allow WCAG 2.0 to be used where requirements and conformance testing are necessary such as in design specification, purchasing, regulation, and contractual agreements. In order to meet the needs of different groups and different situations, three levels of conformance are defined: A (lowest), AA, and AAA (highest). Additional information on WCAG levels can be found in Understanding Levels of Conformance.

• Sufficient and Advisory Techniques - For each of the guidelines and success criteria in the WCAG 2.0 document itself, the working group has also documented a wide variety of techniques. The techniques are informative and fall into two categories: those that are sufficient for meeting the success criteria and those that are advisory. The advisory techniques go beyond what is required by the individual success criteria and allow authors to better address the guidelines. Some advisory techniques address accessibility barriers that are not covered by the testable success criteria. Where common failures are known, these are also documented. See also Sufficient and Advisory Techniques in Understanding WCAG 2.0.

All of these layers of guidance (principles, guidelines, success criteria, and sufficient and advisory techniques) work together to provide guidance on how to make content more accessible. Authors are encouraged to view and apply all layers that they are able to, including the advisory techniques, in order to best address the needs of the widest possible range of users.

Note that even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas. Authors are encouraged to consider the full range of techniques, including the advisory techniques, as well as to seek relevant advice about current best practice to ensure that Web content is accessible, as far as possible, to this community. Metadata may assist users in finding content most suitable for their needs.

0.3 WCAG 2.1 Supporting Documents§

The WCAG 2.0 document is designed to meet the needs of those who need a stable, referenceable technical standard. Other documents, called supporting documents, are based on the WCAG 2.0 document and address other important purposes, including the ability to be updated to describe how WCAG would be applied with new technologies. Supporting documents include:

1. How to Meet WCAG 2.1 - A customizable quick reference to WCAG 2.1 that includes all of the guidelines, success criteria, and techniques for authors to use as they are developing and evaluating Web content. This includes content from WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1 and can be filtered in many ways to help authors focus on relevant content.

2. Understanding WCAG 2.1 - A guide to understanding and implementing WCAG 2.1. There is a short "Understanding" document for each guideline and success criterion in WCAG 2.1 as well as key topics.

3. Techniques for WCAG 2.1 - A collection of techniques and common failures, each in a separate document that includes a description, examples, code and tests.

4. The WCAG Documents - A diagram and description of how the technical documents are related and linked.

See Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview for a description of the WCAG 2.0 supporting material, including education resources related to WCAG 2. Additional resources covering topics such as the business case for Web accessibility, planning implementation to improve the accessibility of Web sites, and accessibility policies are listed in WAI Resources.

0.4 Requirements for WCAG 2.1§

WCAG 2.1 meets a set of requirements for WCAG 2.1 which, in turn, inherit requirements from WCAG 2.0. Requirements structure the overall framework of guidelines and ensure backwards compatibility. The Working Group also used a less formal set of acceptance criteria for success criteria, to help ensure success criteria are similar in style and quality to those in WCAG 2.0. These requirements constrained what could be included in WCAG 2.1. This constraint was important to preserve its nature as a dot-release of WCAG 2.

0.5 Comparison with WCAG 2.0§

WCAG 2.1 was initiated with the goal to improve accessibility guidance for three major groups: users with cognitive or learning disabilities, users with low vision, and users with disabilities on mobile devices. Many ways to meet these needs were proposed and evaluated, and a set of these were refined by the Working Group. Structural requirements inherited from WCAG 2.0, clarity and impact of proposals, and timeline led to the final set of success criteria included in this version. The Working Group considers that WCAG 2.1 incrementally advances web content accessibility guidance for all these areas, but underscores that not all user needs are met by these guidelines.

WCAG 2.1 builds on and is backwards compatible with WCAG 2.0, meaning web pages that conform to WCAG 2.1 also conform to WCAG 2.0. Authors that are required by policy to conform with WCAG 2.0 will be able to update content to WCAG 2.1 without losing conformance with WCAG 2.0. Authors following both sets of guidelines should be aware of the following differences:

0.5.1 New Features in WCAG 2.1§

WCAG 2.1 extends WCAG 2.0 by adding new success criteria, definitions to support them, guidelines to organize the additions, and a couple additions to the conformance section. This additive approach helps to make it clear that sites which conform to WCAG 2.1 also conform to WCAG 2.0, thereby meeting conformance obligations that are specific to WCAG 2.0. The Accessibility Guidelines Working Group recommends that sites adopt WCAG 2.1 as their new conformance target, even if formal obligations mention WCAG 2.0, to provide improved accessibility and to anticipate future policy changes.

The following Success Criteria are new in WCAG 2.1:

Many of these success criteria reference new terms that have also been added to the glossary and form part of the normative requirements of the success criteria.

In the Conformance section, a third note about page variants has been added to Full Pages, and an option for machine-readable metadata added to Optional Components of a Conformance Claim.

0.5.2 Numbering in WCAG 2.1§

In order to avoid confusion for implementers for whom backwards compatibility to WCAG 2.0 is important, new success criteria in WCAG 2.1 have been appended to the end of the set of success criteria within their guideline. This avoids the need to change the section number of success criteria from WCAG 2.0, which would be caused by inserting new success critera between existing success ccriteria in the guideline, but it means success criteria in each guideline are no longer grouped by conformance level. The order of success criteria within each guideline does not imply information about conformance level; only the conformance level indicator (A / AA / AAA) on the success criterion itself indicates this. The WCAG 2.1 Quick Reference provides ways to view success criteria grouped by conformance level, along with many other filter and sort options.

0.5.3 Conformance to WCAG 2.1§

WCAG 2.1 uses the same conformance model as WCAG 2.0 with a couple additions, which is described in the Conformance section. It is intended that sites that conform to WCAG 2.1 also conform to WCAG 2.0, which means they meet the requirements of any policies that reference WCAG 2.0, while also better meeting the needs of users on the current Web.

0.6 Later Versions of Accessibility Guidelines§

In parallel with WCAG 2.1, the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is developing another major version of accessibility guidelines. The result of this work is expected to be a more substantial restructuring of web accessibility guidance than would be realistic for dot-releases of WCAG 2. The work follows a research-focused, user-centered design methodology to produce the most effective and flexible outcome, including the roles of content authoring, user agent support, and authoring tool support. This is a multi-year effort, so WCAG 2.1 is needed as an interim measure to provide updated web accessibility guidance to reflect changes on the web since the publication of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group might also develop additional interim versions, continuing with WCAG 2.2, on a similar short timeline to provide additional support while the major version is completed.

1. Perceivable §

Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive.

Guideline 1.1 Text Alternatives§

Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language.

Success Criterion 1.1.1 Non-text Content§

(Level A)

All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose, except for the situations listed below.

Controls, Input

If non-text content is a control or accepts user input, then it has a name that describes its purpose. (Refer to Success Criterion 4.1.2 for additional requirements for controls and content that accepts user input.)

Time-Based Media

If non-text content is time-based media, then text alternatives at least provide descriptive identification of the non-text content. (Refer to Guideline 1.2 for additional requirements for media.)

Test

If non-text content is a test or exercise that would be invalid if presented in text, then text alternatives at least provide descriptive identification of the non-text content.

Sensory

If non-text content is primarily intended to create a specific sensory experience, then text alternatives at least provide descriptive identification of the non-text content.

Decoration, Formatting, Invisible

If non-text content is pure decoration, is used only for visual formatting, or is not presented to users, then it is implemented in a way that it can be ignored by assistive technology.

Guideline 1.2 Time-based Media§

Provide alternatives for time-based media.

Success Criterion 1.2.1 Audio-only and Video-only (Prerecorded)§

(Level A)

For prerecordedaudio-only and prerecorded video-only media, the following are true, except when the audio or video is a media alternative for text and is clearly labeled as such:

Prerecorded Audio-only

An alternative for time-based media is provided that presents equivalent information for prerecorded audio-only content.

Prerecorded Video-only

Either an alternative for time-based media or an audio track is provided that presents equivalent information for prerecorded video-only content.

Success Criterion 1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded)§

(Level A)

Captions are provided for all prerecordedaudio content in synchronized media, except when the media is a media alternative for text and is clearly labeled as such.

Success Criterion 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded)§

(Level A)

An alternative for time-based media or audio description of the prerecordedvideo content is provided for synchronized media, except when the media is a media alternative for text and is clearly labeled as such.

Success Criterion 1.2.4 Captions (Live)§

(Level AA)

Captions are provided for all liveaudio content in synchronized media.

Success Criterion 1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded)§

(Level AA)

Audio description is provided for all prerecordedvideo content in synchronized media.

Success Criterion 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded)§

(Level AAA)

Sign language interpretation is provided for all prerecordedaudio content in synchronized media.

Success Criterion 1.2.7 Extended Audio Description (Prerecorded)§

(Level AAA)

Where pauses in foreground audio are insufficient to allow audio descriptions to convey the sense of the video, extended audio description is provided for all prerecordedvideo content in synchronized media.

Success Criterion 1.2.8 Media Alternative (Prerecorded)§

(Level AAA)

An alternative for time-based media is provided for all prerecordedsynchronized media and for all prerecorded video-only media.

Success Criterion 1.2.9 Audio-only (Live)§

(Level AAA)

An alternative for time-based media that presents equivalent information for liveaudio-only content is provided.

Guideline 1.3 Adaptable§

Create content that can be presented in different ways (for example simpler layout) without losing information or structure.

Success Criterion 1.3.1 Info and Relationships§

(Level A)

Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text.

Success Criterion 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence§

(Level A)

When the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence can be programmatically determined.

Success Criterion 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics§

(Level A)

Instructions provided for understanding and operating content do not rely solely on sensory characteristics of components such as shape, color, size, visual location, orientation, or sound.

Success Criterion 1.3.4 Orientation§

(Level AA)

Content does not restrict its view and operation to a single display orientation, such as portrait or landscape, unless a specific display orientation is essential.

Success Criterion 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose§

(Level AA)

The purpose of each input field collecting information about the user can be programmatically determined when:

Success Criterion 1.3.6 Identify Purpose§

(Level AAA)

In content implemented using markup languages, the purpose of User Interface Components, icons, and regions can be programmatically determined.

Guideline 1.4 Distinguishable§

Make it easier for users to see and hear content including separating foreground from background.

Success Criterion 1.4.1 Use of Color§

(Level A)

Color is not used as the only visual means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual element.

Success Criterion 1.4.2 Audio Control§

(Level A)

If any audio on a Web page plays automatically for more than 3 seconds, either a mechanism is available to pause or stop the audio, or a mechanism is available to control audio volume independently from the overall system volume level.

Success Criterion 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)§

(Level AA)

The visual presentation of text and images of text has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, except for the following:

Large Text

Large-scale text and images of large-scale text have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1;

Incidental

Text or images of text that are part of an inactive user interface component, that are pure decoration, that are not visible to anyone, or that are part of a picture that contains significant other visual content, have no contrast requirement.

Logotypes

Text that is part of a logo or brand name has no contrast requirement.

Success Criterion 1.4.4 Resize text§

(Level AA)

Except for captions and images of text, text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent without loss of content or functionality.

Success Criterion 1.4.5 Images of Text§

(Level AA)

If the technologies being used can achieve the visual presentation, text is used to convey information rather than images of text except for the following:

Customizable

The image of text can be visually customized to the user's requirements;

Essential

A particular presentation of text is essential to the information being conveyed.

Success Criterion 1.4.6 Contrast (Enhanced)§

(Level AAA)

The visual presentation of text and images of text has a contrast ratio of at least 7:1, except for the following:

Large Text

Large-scale text and images of large-scale text have a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1;

Incidental

Text or images of text that are part of an inactive user interface component, that are pure decoration, that are not visible to anyone, or that are part of a picture that contains significant other visual content, have no contrast requirement.

Logotypes

Text that is part of a logo or brand name has no contrast requirement.

Success Criterion 1.4.7 Low or No Background Audio§

(Level AAA)

For prerecordedaudio-only content that (1) contains primarily speech in the foreground, (2) is not an audio or audio logo, and (3) is not vocalization intended to be primarily musical expression such as singing or rapping, at least one of the following is true:

No Background

The audio does not contain background sounds.

Turn Off

The background sounds can be turned off.

20 dB

The background sounds are at least 20 decibels lower than the foreground speech content, with the exception of occasional sounds that last for only one or two seconds.

Per the definition of "decibel," background sound that meets this requirement will be approximately four times quieter than the foreground speech content.

Success Criterion 1.4.8 Visual Presentation§

(Level AAA)

For the visual presentation of blocks of text, a mechanism is available to achieve the following:

• Foreground and background colors can be selected by the user.
• Width is no more than 80 characters or glyphs (40 if CJK).
• Text is not justified (aligned to both the left and the right margins).
• Line spacing (leading) is at least space-and-a-half within paragraphs, and paragraph spacing is at least 1.5 times larger than the line spacing.
• Text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent in a way that does not require the user to scroll horizontally to read a line of text on a full-screen window.

Success Criterion 1.4.9 Images of Text (No Exception)§

(Level AAA)

Images of text are only used for pure decoration or where a particular presentation of text is essential to the information being conveyed.

Success Criterion 1.4.10 Reflow§

(Level AA)

Content can be presented without loss of information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in two dimensions for:

• Vertical scrolling content at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels;
• Horizontal scrolling content at a height equivalent to 256 CSS pixels.

Except for parts of the content which require two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning.

Success Criterion 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast§

(Level AA)

The visual presentation of the following have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against adjacent color(s):

User Interface Components

Visual information required to identify user interface components and states, except for inactive components or where the appearance of the component is determined by the user agent and not modified by the author;

Graphical Objects

Parts of graphics required to understand the content, except when a particular presentation of graphics is essential to the information being conveyed.

Success Criterion 1.4.12 Text Spacing§

(Level AA)

In content implemented using markup languages that support the following textstyle properties, no loss of content or functionality occurs by setting all of the following and by changing no other style property:

• Line height (line spacing) to at least 1.5 times the font size;
• Spacing following paragraphs to at least 2 times the font size;
• Letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 times the font size;
• Word spacing to at least 0.16 times the font size.

Exception: Human languages and scripts that do not make use of one or more of these text style properties in written text can conform using only the properties that exist for that combination of language and script.

Success Criterion 1.4.13 Content on Hover or Focus§

(Level AA)

Where receiving and then removing pointer hover or keyboard focus triggers additional content to become visible and then hidden, the following are true:

Dismissable

A mechanism is available to dismiss the additional content without moving pointer hover or keyboard focus, unless the additional content communicates an input error or does not obscure or replace other content;

Hoverable

If pointer hover can trigger the additional content, then the pointer can be moved over the additional content without the additional content disappearing;

Persistent

The additional content remains visible until the hover or focus trigger is removed, the user dismisses it, or its information is no longer valid.

Exception: The visual presentation of the additional content is controlled by the user agent and is not modified by the author.

2. Operable §

User interface components and navigation must be operable.

Guideline 2.1 Keyboard Accessible§

Make all functionality available from a keyboard.

Success Criterion 2.1.1 Keyboard§

(Level A)

All functionality of the content is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints.

Success Criterion 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap§

(Level A)

If keyboard focus can be moved to a component of the page using a keyboard interface, then focus can be moved away from that component using only a keyboard interface, and, if it requires more than unmodified arrow or tab keys or other standard exit methods, the user is advised of the method for moving focus away.

Success Criterion 2.1.3 Keyboard (No Exception)§

(Level AAA)

All functionality of the content is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes.

Success Criterion 2.1.4

Facile access to diverse all-carbon quaternary center containing spirobicycles by exploring a tandem Castro–Stephens coupling/acyloxy shift/cyclization/semipinacol rearrangement sequence†

Abstract

Efficient combination of two or more reactions into a practically useful purification free sequence is of great significance for the achievement of structural complexity and diversity, and an important approach for the development of new synthetic strategies that are industrially step-economic and environmentally friendly. In this work, a facile and efficient method for the construction of highly functionalized spirocyclo[4.5]decane derivatives containing a synthetically challenging quaternary carbon center has been successfully developed through the realization of a tandem Castro–Stephens coupling/1,3-acyloxy shift/cyclization/semipinacol rearrangement sequence. Thus a series of multi-substituted spirocyclo[4.5]decane and functionalized cyclohexane skeletons with a phenyl-substituted quaternary carbon center have been constructed using this method as illustrated by 24 examples in moderate to good yields. The major advantages of this method over the known strategies are better transformation efficiency (four consecutive transformations in one tandem reaction), product complexity and diversity. As a support of its potential application, a quick construction of the key tetracyclic diterpene skeleton of waihoensene has been achieved.

This article is Open Access

Please wait while we load your content... Something went wrong. Try again?

Back to tab navigation

Supplementary files

Article information

---

This article is Open Access

All publication charges for this article have been paid for by the Royal Society of Chemistry

Chem. Sci., 2020,11, 3878-3884

Facile access to diverse all-carbon quaternary center containing spirobicycles by exploring a tandem Castro–Stephens coupling/acyloxy shift/cyclization/semipinacol rearrangement sequence

Y. Zhang, T. Zheng, F. Cheng, K. Dai, K. Zhang, A. Ma, F. Zhang, X. Zhang, S. Wang and Y. Tu, Chem. Sci., 2020, 11, 3878

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported Licence. Material from this article can be used in other publications provided that the correct acknowledgement is given with the reproduced material and it is not used for commercial purposes.

Reproduced material should be attributed as follows:

• For reproduction of material from NJC:
  [Original citation] - Published by The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) on behalf of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and the RSC.
• For reproduction of material from PCCP:
  [Original citation] - Published by the PCCP Owner Societies.
• For reproduction of material from PPS:
  [Original citation] - Published by The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) on behalf of the European Society for Photobiology, the European Photochemistry Association, and RSC.
• For reproduction of material from all other RSC journals:
  [Original citation] - Published by The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Information about reproducing material from RSC articles with different licences is available on our Permission Requests page.

Spotlight

Advertisements