How to evaluate Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates.
📋 For procurement & IT
What is a VPAT?
A Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) is a document that explains how a technology product conforms to accessibility standards. When completed, it's called an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR).
Why VPATs matter
VPATs help UA make informed decisions about technology purchases. They document:
- How well a product meets WCAG standards
- Known accessibility issues
- Vendor commitment to accessibility
- Potential barriers for users with disabilities
Requesting VPATs from vendors
Where to find VPATs
- Vendor website: Often under "Accessibility" or "Legal" sections
- ITIC VPAT Repository: itic.org/policy/accessibility/vpat
- Direct request: Contact vendor sales or support
Sample request language
"As part of our accessibility evaluation, please provide the most recent Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR)/VPAT for [product name]. We require documentation based on WCAG 2.1 Level AA. If an ACR is not available, please provide your product accessibility roadmap or indicate when one will be available."
Red flags when requesting
- Vendor doesn't know what a VPAT is
- VPAT is more than 18 months old
- VPAT based on older standards (WCAG 2.0 or Section 508 original)
- Vendor refuses to provide documentation
- VPAT only covers part of the product
Understanding VPAT format
VPAT versions
| Version | Standards covered | Preferred? |
|---|---|---|
| VPAT 2.4 WCAG | WCAG 2.1 (web content) | ✓ Yes |
| VPAT 2.4 508 | Revised Section 508 | ✓ Acceptable |
| VPAT 2.4 INT | WCAG + 508 + EN 301 549 | ✓ Best for comprehensive |
| VPAT 2.3 or earlier | Varies | ⚠️ Request update |
Conformance levels
| Level | Meaning | Acceptable? |
|---|---|---|
| Supports | Functionality fully meets criterion | ✓ Best |
| Partially Supports | Some functionality meets criterion | ⚠️ Review details |
| Does Not Support | Most functionality doesn't meet criterion | ✗ Concern |
| Not Applicable | Criterion doesn't apply to product | — Verify claim |
| Not Evaluated | Not tested | ⚠️ Request testing |
Evaluating a VPAT
Quick assessment questions
- Date: Is it within 18 months? Has product had major updates since?
- Version: Does it cover WCAG 2.1? Or at least WCAG 2.0 AA?
- Scope: Does it cover all features you'll use?
- Detail: Are remarks specific or vague/generic?
- Honesty: Does it acknowledge any issues? (No product is perfect)
Scoring approach
Calculate an informal accessibility score:
- Supports: 2 points
- Partially Supports: 1 point
- Does Not Support: 0 points
- Not Applicable: Exclude from calculation
Target: 80%+ of applicable criteria should be "Supports" or "Partially Supports"
Priority criteria to review
Focus on these high-impact WCAG criteria:
| Criterion | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| 1.1.1 Non-text Content | Images, charts must have alternatives |
| 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) | Text must be readable |
| 2.1.1 Keyboard | All functionality by keyboard |
| 2.4.4 Link Purpose | Links make sense out of context |
| 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value | Works with assistive technology |
VPAT red flags
Warning signs
- All "Supports": Unrealistic; every product has some issues
- Vague remarks: "Generally accessible" without specifics
- Copied remarks: Same text for multiple criteria
- Missing criteria: Entire sections marked N/A without explanation
- Very old date: More than 2 years old
- Unknown author: No company identification or contact
Questions to ask vendors
- When was accessibility last tested?
- Was testing done internally or by third party?
- What testing methodology was used?
- What's your accessibility roadmap for reported issues?
- Do you have users with disabilities beta test?
- What support do you offer for accessibility issues?
What if there's no VPAT?
Options
- Request one: Give vendor timeline to produce
- Conduct own evaluation: Test critical functionality
- Require in contract: Make VPAT a deliverable
- Consider alternatives: Look for products with VPATs
- Document risk: If proceeding, document accessibility risk
Self-evaluation checklist
If vendor has no VPAT, test these basics:
- Can you Tab through all interactive elements?
- Are focus indicators visible?
- Do images have alt text?
- Is text contrast sufficient?
- Can you use all features without a mouse?
- Are form fields labeled?
- Does it work with screen reader (basic test)?
Documenting your review
When reviewing a VPAT, document:
- Date of review
- VPAT version and date
- Product name and version
- Features evaluated
- Summary of findings
- Risk assessment (low/medium/high)
- Recommended conditions (if approving)
- Required vendor commitments
Decision framework
| VPAT quality | Accessibility level | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| Current, detailed | 80%+ Supports | ✓ Approve |
| Current, detailed | 60-80% Supports | ⚠️ Conditional approval with remediation plan |
| Current, detailed | <60% Supports | ✗ Request alternatives |
| Outdated/vague | Any | ⚠️ Request updated VPAT or self-evaluate |
| No VPAT | Unknown | ⚠️ Self-evaluate or require in contract |