About VPAT Evaluation
What's a VPAT, and why is it important?
A VPAT is a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT). It's a standardized form provided by the Information Technology Industry Council so that vendors can evaluate and share how well their products adhere to the accessibility guidelines of the WCAG and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
VPATs come in four different types:
- WCAG edition - For reporting compliance to the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 or 2.1.
- 508 edition - For reporting compliance to the U.S. Revised Section 508 standards
- EU edition - The European edition used for reporting compliance to the EN 301 549 standard
- INT edition - The international edition used for reporting compliance to all three standards
When a vendor fills out a VPAT, the resulting document is called an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR).
VPATs and the resulting ACRs are important so that organizations like UVM can ensure that the products they buy are accessible to people with disabilities.
When should I ask for a VPAT evaluation?
Anyone who is considering purchasing a product for use at UVM must go through an IT Contract Review process before making the purchase. A VPAT or ACR review is part of the IT Contract Review process.
And while some accessibility issues can be worked around, the majority of major accessibility issues cannot. Therefore, it's best to get a VPAT or ACR review done early in the process, to ensure that the project you want to purchase for use at UVM can actually be purchased.
Reach out as early in the purchasing process as possible.
What happens if the review indicates a product is not accessible?
If, at the end of the review, the product turns out to have major or multiple accessibility issues, or there are major issues with the ACR itself, then one of two things can happen:
- If the overwhelming majority of the campus would benefit from access to one particular product that is not 100% accessible, OAS can work with the vendor to create an Equally Effective Alternative Access Plan (EEAAP). An EEAAP details how UVM will provide equal access to the product or for completion of the task despite the product's accessibility issues.
- Otherwise, UVM cannot purchase the product.
How does an evaluation work?
The OAS Web & Digital Accessibility Specialist will read through the vendor's Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) and grade it based on an industry-standard rubric.
The OAS rubric looks at:
- Who did the vendor's accessibility testing
- What kind of accessibility testing the vendor did for the ACR
- When the last round of testing was done
- Which template was used
- Which aspects of the product were tested
- How well the accessibility successes and failures have been documented
- Whether there are any major accessibility failures documented in the ACR.
Each item on the rubric will be assigned one of two states: Pass or Fail. Then at the end of the grading process, the ACR will be assigned a letter grade from A through to F. Letter grades are determined by the percentage of items with a Pass.
A copy of the evaluation can be provided to both the department and the vendor.
A Closer Look at the VPAT & ACR Evaluation Rubric
CRITERIA | PASS | FAIL |
|---|---|---|
Version: does the VPAT template being used include the Section 508 criteria? | If so, then pass. | If not, then fail. |
Date: was the VPAT updated in the last 24 months? | If so, then pass. | If not, then fail. |
Template: is the VPAT template being used either 2.4 or 2.5? | If so, then pass. | If not, then fail. |
NDA: Are individuals required to sign an NDA before accessing the completed ACR? | If not, then pass. | If so, then fail. If individuals are required to provide additional information or register with the vendor, then “More Details Needed”. |
Product Information: Is the product name and version correct? | If so, then pass. | If both are incorrect, then fail. If one is incorrect, then “More Details Needed”. |
Contact information: does the ACR contain accurate contact information for follow-up? | If ACR contains an individual’s name, email, and phone number, then pass. | If ACR contains nothing, or no individual’s name, then fail. If ACR contains partial contact information, then “More Details Needed”. |
Evaluation Party: Was the evaluation conducted by a respected third party? | If testing was done by an independent accessibility auditing company or a dedicated accessibility specialist within the company (name and contact details provided), then pass. | If testing was done by an unknown party, then fail. |
Evaluation Method: Is the evaluation method specified? | If testing includes both automated and manual testing, including assistive technology details, then pass. | If testing does not include automated and manual testing with details of assistive technology, then fail. |
Conformance Levels: Are conformance levels noted and explained? | If conformance levels are noted, and include WCAG 2.2 A and AA, as well as Section 508 Chapter 6 and Chapter 3 (as applicable), then pass. | If conformance levels are not noted, or do not include WCAG 2.2 A and AA, then fail. If conformance levels are WCAG 2.1, or are missing Section 508 requirements, then More Details Needed. |
Notes: Are detailed, accurate notes provided? | If notes are detailed and accurate, then pass. | If notes are missing or contain concerning statements (e.g., only automated testing was used, an application won’t be used by people with disabilities, or key parts of the product were excluded from the ACR because they weren’t accessible), then fail. |
WCAG Tables: Are all WCAG tables included? | If WCAG tables for all 13 guidelines are included, then Pass. | If tables are incomplete, then fail. |
Completed Tables: Are all tables completed in full? | If all tables have been completed in full, then Pass. | If not all tables have been completed in full, then fail. |
Section 508: Are all requirements of Section 508 Chapter 6 included and completed in full? | If all requirements as laid out in Section 508 Chapter 6, “Support Documentation and Services” are included and completed in full, then pass. | If not all requirements as laid out in Section 508 Chapter 6 are included, then fail.
If some but not all requirements as laid out in Section 508 Chapter 6 are included, then More Details Needed. |
Not Applicable Remarks: Any items that have been marked “Not Applicable” have detailed notes, and make sense in the context of the product. | If all items that have been marked “Not Applicable” have detailed notes and make sense, then Pass. | If any items that have been marked “Not Applicable” lack notes, then fail.
If any items that have been marked “Not Applicable” have confusing notes or seem to be applicable, then More Details Needed. |
Level Documentation: Are all items marked as Supports / Partially Supports / Not Supported accompanied by detailed notes? | If all items that have been marked as Supports / Partially Supports / Not Supported have detailed notes, then Pass.
These details should contain the following information based on support level:
| If any items are marked as Supports / Partially Supported / Not Supported and lack detailed notes, then fail.
If any items are marked as Supports / Partially Supports / Not Supported and contain notes that indicate the reviewer may not understand the criteria, then More Details Needed. |
Conformance Matching: do any items marked as “Supports” contain notes that lead an evaluator to believe otherwise? | If no items are marked as “Supports” but have notes that indicate otherwise, then mark as Pass. | If any items are marked as “Supports” but have notes that indicate otherwise, then mark as Fail, and ask for more details. |