Procuring accessible technology can feel overwhelming, particularly for organizations unfamiliar with the technicalities of digital accessibility requirements for assistive technology users. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whether in the K-12 education space, healthcare, state\/federal government, or other high-risk industries, ensuring the technology you procure is accessible is not just a legal mandate in many verticals\u2014it\u2019s an ethical responsibility. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Accessible technology empowers your end-users, including students, employees, and the public, ensuring equal access for everyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This article simplifies the process of evaluating technology in your procurement process by passing on some simple best practices I have learned from many other leaders in the accessibility industry, including the Disability:IN Procure Access Advisory Group<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It will even dive into some six practical tests you or your procurement team can follow when assessing technology for accessibility compliance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n We\u2019ll also highlight why asking the right questions and ensuring vendor accountability is essential\u2014even if accessibility is a new or unfamiliar topic for your organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before diving in, it\u2019s essential to ask the vendor about their commitment to digital accessibility. At first glance, this might seem like a basic question, but the vendor’s response can tell you a lot. Accessibility cannot be addressed as an afterthought\u2014it’s a fundamental part of ensuring all users can engage with a product, regardless of their abilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Imagine you\u2019re about to embark on a major construction project. Wouldn\u2019t you want to ensure the contractor has all the necessary permits, certifications, and experience before breaking ground? The same applies here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A vendor\u2019s ability to articulate a clear, actionable commitment to accessibility standards, known in the industry as an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), is a baseline indicator of how seriously they take accessibility. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If they can\u2019t explain their conformance or demonstrate ongoing efforts to meet these standards, it\u2019s like a builder who doesn\u2019t know the safety codes. This is a red flag that their product might fail to meet the needs of all users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Imagine you\u2019re procuring software for a public school district where students of all abilities need equal access to digital learning tools. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If the vendor can\u2019t confidently speak about how their product aligns with WCAG standards or hasn\u2019t taken steps to comply with regulations like the recently updated DOJ Title II requirements<\/a>, they\u2019re likely overlooking the needs of students who rely on assistive technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An inaccessible product could mean these students miss out on critical educational opportunities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n By asking these direct questions upfront, you set the tone for accountability and transparency, ensuring accessibility isn\u2019t left to chance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vendors unfamiliar with WCAG standards or legal regulations affecting your sector may not have considered accessibility at all in full transparency. While smaller vendors might not have everything in place just yet (and this is fine!)\u2014their awareness and willingness to discuss these topics are crucial indicators of their future efforts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If a vendor seems unaware or unable to provide documentation of their efforts, it\u2019s not just a potential accessibility failure; it\u2019s a signal that their product is likely inaccessible or not on a path to improvement in the foreseeable future, posing risks to your organization\u2019s compliance and your end-user experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After discussing standards and regulations, the next step is to request a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT), which, if done correctly, will provide the Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) for the product. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A VPAT ACR serves as a product\u2019s accessibility scorecard\u2014it should provide detailed insights into how well the software meets accessibility standards like WCAG 2.2, outlining any areas of non-conformance or why certain success criteria may not apply to the software product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Every reputable software vendor should have an up-to-date VPAT ACR in today’s regulatory landscape. It\u2019s not just about checking boxes or having a perfectly accessible product; it\u2019s about transparency and trust. A VPAT provides you with a snapshot of the product\u2019s current accessibility status, but it’s also an indicator of the vendor\u2019s commitment to making ongoing improvements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, not all VPATs are created equal.<\/strong> Some vendors will have comprehensive reports backed by live-user testing, while others might only offer superficial or very limited assessments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Say you are buying a house\u2014you wouldn’t skip the inspection just because the seller assures you that everything is in perfect condition because they lived there. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The VPAT ACR is the inspection, providing you with the necessary details to evaluate the product’s accessibility and likely the areas of non-conformance that can be improved. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Without this transparency, you’re making a highly risky purchase that could result in future legal liabilities or, worse, an unusable product for people with disabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If a vendor is unable or unwilling to provide a VPAT ACR, it should be considered a major red flag in most scenarios. It\u2019s like buying that house without knowing the details of what you are buying. <\/p>\n\n\n\n You have no idea what you\u2019re getting into, and in many cases, the product will fail to meet the accessibility needs of your users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the energy and resources a vendor would need to expel in order to build an accessible product, I assure you they would show this off through a solid VPAT ACR, as they should!<\/p>\n\n\n\n In sectors like K-12 education, federal and state government, or healthcare, where where inaccessible technology could directly affect people\u2019s quality of life, the risks are too high to leave anything to chance \u2014 particularly on large software investments that will be deployed at access points to most, or all, of your students, parents, patients, constituents or others in need of your organization\u2019s goods and services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now that you\u2019ve requested the VPAT, the next step is assessing its quality. This becomes overwhelming for many organizations because we cannot, and should not, expect procurement teams to be WCAG or digital accessibility experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, a VPAT ACR is only as good as the testing and methodology behind it. This is where I\u2019m hopeful these six simple tests can help your team immensely. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If deployed, these should guide your team through distinguishing between a superficial report and one that genuinely supports accessibility. Think of this as your team\u2019s \u201cVPAT ACR Procurement Quiz\u201d for software vendors you are purchasing or renewing from here on out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No product is 100% accessible \u2014 full stop. If a VPAT ACR shows that the product “supports” every single WCAG success criterion, this should be concerning for your team. I realize that sounds a bit backward!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here’s why:<\/strong> Accessibility is a nuanced, ongoing process. Achieving full accessibility isn’t a one-and-done task; it requires constant testing, iteration, and improvement. Realistically, even the best vendors will identify some<\/em> gaps in accessibility, whether technical barriers or limitations imposed by the platform itself. Again, this is fine. No product is 100% accessible, and for many large and complex software products, this likely should not be the goal as it would never be achieved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Think of accessibility like building a bridge\u2014it’s not enough to say that every part of the bridge is strong. You need to know where the weak points are so that you can reinforce them before someone falls through. A vendor that claims “complete support” is likely glossing over potential issues or didn\u2019t have a thorough assessment completed. This could leave you vulnerable to complaints, lawsuits, or simply alienating users with disabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Imagine a student who cannot use a mouse due to a physical disability trying to access online learning materials, only to encounter a button that can\u2019t be activated with a keyboard. If the product claims to support all accessibility guidelines fully but the student can\u2019t complete their coursework, their VPAT ACR should not show \u2018full support.\u2019 By identifying these shortcomings upfront, you protect not only your organization but also the individuals who rely on the product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accessibility isn’t static\u2014what was compliant last year might not be today. Technology evolves, new features are introduced, and regulatory changes occur. No set-in-stone requirement exists for how often a VPAT ACR must be<\/em> updated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n However, based on industry research with other leaders, it is generally recommended that procurement teams request a VPAT ACR that is not more than 12 months old, as it may be outdated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regardless, regularly updated VPATs show a commitment to staying ahead of the curve and ensuring ongoing accessibility, and vendors with more up-to-date versions should score much higher on accessibility in procurement reviews.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A VPAT ACR that hasn\u2019t been updated is like using last year\u2019s map to navigate a constantly changing landscape; even a tiny product update\u2014like a new navigation feature or integration with another tool\u2014can introduce accessibility barriers. An outdated VPAT suggests the vendor may not be actively maintaining accessibility, which can lead to significant issues in future product releases. This can mean you purchase a technically accessible product today. Still, if 24 months of development occurs in a 3-year contract, and accessibility tests are not built into the ongoing product lifecycle, it could fall into a highly inaccessible state during the contract term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Consider an agency that procures software to manage health records for a large hospital. A year ago, the software might have been mostly accessible and highly usable, but since then, the vendor has introduced new features without ensuring they meet accessibility standards. A blind doctor using a screen reader might suddenly find the software unusable for critical tasks, potentially delaying patient care or creating an inability for them to perform their job. Regular updates to the VPAT ensure that such risks are mitigated, giving you peace of mind that accessibility has been prioritized throughout the product\u2019s lifecycle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s easy to overlook, but make sure the product version on the VPAT matches the one you\u2019re planning to purchase. Additionally, ensure the product features are tested on the Accessibility Conformance Report. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The vendor should hopefully provide your team with an outline of the same feature set of the product your team is procuring. Accessibility can vary significantly between versions\u2014specifically those that include major UI or feature enhancement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Even a minor update could introduce barriers or, conversely, address critical issues that were present in earlier versions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Imagine buying a car based on a review of last year\u2019s model, only to discover that the new model has serious safety flaws or is even missing a feature that you needed. The same applies to software accessibility\u2014if you\u2019re relying on an old VPAT ACR, you may miss out on new problems (or improvements) affecting the current version.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Take, for example, a state government agency procuring a case management system. The system is vital for processing citizen applications, including those from individuals with disabilities. If the version you procure is different from the version listed on the VPAT, there could be accessibility gaps that affect how employees process applications from people who rely on assistive technologies. To avoid operational bottlenecks or exclusions, you need to ensure the VPAT reflects the most current version of the product you\u2019re considering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When a neutral third party conducts a VPAT ACR, you can generally have far greater confidence in its accuracy. In fact, many organizations whom I have spoken with directly, which are seen as accessibility leaders, explicitly require that VPAT ACRs be completed by a third party to be considered in their procurement reviews.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most <\/em>vendors conducting VPATs internally may have conflicts of interest or lack the technical depth to test their products thoroughly. There are instances among Fortune 100 organizations where their internal accessibility team is both well funded and extremely knowledgeable, including people with disabilities where an internally completed VPAT ACR will be highly accurate. However, this is an outlier instead of the norm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Third-party assessments should<\/em> provide an unbiased, comprehensive view of a product\u2019s accessibility, pulling on the expertise of seasoned accessibility engineers to provide a thorough and honest review of the software vendor\u2019s product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Internal evaluations are often optimistic at best and, at worst, overlook critical accessibility issues altogether. Third-party assessments are like having an expert mechanic inspect a used car before purchase. You get an objective view of any flaws, and the vendor doesn\u2019t have the opportunity to downplay or even ignore them for the sake of making the sale to your team.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Think of a school district evaluating an e-learning platform. If the VPAT was completed by the vendors themselves, they may not have had a proper understanding of the challenges students with disabilities face. Perhaps they relied on automated testing tools only, which often miss crucial issues that real users encounter. Third-party audits should<\/em> incorporate more rigorous testing methods, including live-user testing, and give you a more reliable picture of the product\u2019s accessibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Live-user testing is critical because it reflects how real people interact with technology\u2014especially those who use assistive technologies like screen readers or keyboard navigation. Automated tools can only catch so much. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To truly ensure accessibility, vendors should include real users with disabilities in their testing process. Their feedback is essential to understanding where barriers exist in the product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is where Test 4 and Test 5 somewhat rely on each other. The VPAT ACR you obtain should include details on the type of users with disabilities and specific assistive technologies the third-party vendor included to ensure their report accurately reflects the product\u2019s conformance with WCAG.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Automated testing is like running spell-check on an essay\u2014it can catch basic errors, but it won\u2019t help with the deeper issues like structure or flow. Similarly, automated tools can identify surface-level accessibility problems. Still, real-world usability issues are often missed without involving live users who are experts in leveraging assistive technology to interact with the digital world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Imagine a social services platform citizens use to access important public benefits. A person who is visually impaired may struggle to fill out required forms because an automated tool missed an inaccessible label. This could delay their benefits, causing frustration and stress that should be avoided and unnecessary to an individual who needs it the most. Live-user testing helps vendors find these real-world issues, ensuring a smoother and more inclusive experience for end users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A good VPAT ACR doesn\u2019t just say what works and what doesn\u2019t\u2014it provides a well-defined roadmap for fixing accessibility gaps. Simply said, the best VPAT ACRs include an ACR<\/strong>!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Your team should look for vendors that provide clear steps on how they plan to address the issues identified in their VPAT ACR, complete with timelines and priorities for resolving issues based on their practical impact on the end user. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This shows the vendor is committed to continuous improvement rather than just checking a box for compliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accessibility is a journey, not a destination. The software you procure may not be fully accessible today, which should not be your request in procurement, as outlined in this article. However, a solid roadmap indicates the vendor\u2019s commitment to getting there and, over the life of a contract, building a more accessible product that will only enhance access for your end-user. Without this, you risk investing in a product that will never meet the needs of your diverse user base, leaving you exposed to both legal risks and valid user frustration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s say you\u2019re procuring a student management system for a school district. The system isn\u2019t fully accessible today, but the vendor provides a detailed plan for addressing accessibility gaps. They commit to making critical features accessible within 12 months, with regular progress reports and updates. This transparency and dedication give you confidence that the vendor will follow through, ensuring that students with disabilities can use the system without barriers in the near future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One thing I hope everyone reading takes away from the six steps above is the criticality of this final real-world example. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important to understand the impact of the honest education vendor with a clearly defined roadmap and honest view of their product\u2019s accessibility \u2014 even if there are gaps in their current VPAT ACR. These vendors are far more valuable to your team than the software vendor stating \u201cfull accessibility,\u201d which isn\u2019t accurate and blocks your student once you spend thousands of dollars implementing the software. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Or a vendor whose last accessibility review was 18 months ago, with no accessibility progress in the interim, and whose software is regressing at every release.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It helps you and all organizations when these vendors, with a true commitment to accessibility, win your business through a thorough and honest accessibility review of all vendors in a procurement cycle. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Weighting accessibility with high importance and providing vendors with feedback aligned with the six steps above will push more software vendors to show a real commitment to accessibility by improving their product access.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, this creates a win for you as a procuring entity but a much larger win for people with disabilities who are forced to use many inaccessible software products every day.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Navigating accessibility during procurement doesn\u2019t have to be overwhelming; it also does not have to be perfect. All aspects of accessibility are a journey, and your team should be focused on small victories and process improvements. <\/p>\n\n\n\n By deploying the six tests above into your software procurement process, your team will be on the path to helping ensure that the technology you procure not only meets today\u2019s accessibility standards but also aligns with your organization\u2019s commitment to inclusion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Don\u2019t settle for vague promises\u2014hold your vendors accountable and ensure that accessibility remains a priority throughout the product lifecycle!<\/p>\n\n\n\n At Allyant, we know the path to accessibility can be complex, especially in procurement. That\u2019s why our VPAT services<\/a> go beyond just checking boxes\u2014we perform deep assessments, including live-user testing, and provide software vendors with actionable reports that ensure they can meet your accessibility requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you are looking to procure a software and the vendor has a vested interest in improving their product but is unsure where to look, have them reach out to our team<\/a>. We will get them on the path to conformance and pass your Six Step Procurement Quiz with flying colors in no time!<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the flip side, if you need further procurement support or want to help build an even more robust review of all the software products you are procuring or renewing in upcoming contract cycles, we can help you succeed. <\/p>\n\n\n\nStart by Asking About Accessibility Standards<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why This Matters<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Simple Starter Questions to Ask the Vendor:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
If They Don\u2019t Know\u2014Red Flags to Watch For<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why You Need to Request a VPAT ACR<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why This Matters<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Evaluating the VPAT ACR: What to Look For<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Test 1: Does Everything \u201cSupport\u201d?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Why This Matters<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Real-World Context<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Test 2: Is the VPAT ACR More Than 12 Months Old?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Why This Matters<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Real-World Example<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Test 3: Is the Product Version Listed on the VPAT ACR the Same One You Are Procuring?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Why This Matters<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Real-World Example<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Test 4: Was the VPAT ACR Completed by a Third Party?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Why This Matters<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Real-World Example<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Test 5: Was Live-User Testing Performed?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Why This Matters<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Real-World Context<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Test 6: Is the ACR Roadmap a Path to Conformance?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Why This Matters<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Real-World Context<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Six Steps to More Accessibility Products!<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Allyant’s Role in Helping You Procure Accessible Technology<\/h2>\n\n\n\n