How to Read a VPAT for Academic Platforms
Trust note
This article was written by a person and reviewed against accessibility.chat editorial standards. Treat it as research and education rather than legal advice. We prioritize primary sources and correct material errors.
Filed unread, it's worse than nothing. Here's what to check before it goes in front of a department that already picked the tool.
A vendor is going to hand you an Accessibility Conformance Report (opens in new window) for a research database, an LMS integration, or a departmental tool that's already been selected by the time it reaches you. Filing it unread as proof of diligence is worse than nothing — it looks like you checked, and you didn't, and in this sector you'll often be reviewing a decision that's already effectively been made, which makes the review even more important, not less.
Nobody can "certify" this
Accessibility is a maintained practice, not a permanent state. A vendor claiming their platform is "fully certified compliant" has either misunderstood their own report or is hoping you won't ask what that word is doing there.
The eight-point test
Age. Dated within the last twelve months, or newer than the platform's last major release.
Product identity. Exact product, version, and interfaces named — is the student-facing interface named separately from the admin/faculty side, since these are often genuinely different experiences?
Author. Named author or firm with stated qualifications, or anonymous, or written by sales.
Standard. Evaluated against current WCAG (opens in new window), Levels A and AA, criterion by criterion.
Method. Automated and manual testing both described, actual assistive technology named.
Scope. States plainly what was and wasn't tested.
Terms. Standard conformance vocabulary, not an invented rating.
Ratings explained. Every non-"Supports" rating carries an actual remark.
A report failing three or more points isn't evidence of anything. Send it back before spending another minute on it — and if a department has already committed to the tool, this is exactly the moment to say so, in writing, before the purchase finalizes.
Then read the content, and judge materiality for students
Read every row below full support and every remark under "Supports." Quote what you find rather than paraphrasing it. Judge materiality against what a student actually needs: can they navigate the reading list with a keyboard? Can a screen reader user actually submit an assignment? A missing alt-text attribute on a decorative image is not the same finding as a discussion board that can't be operated without a mouse.
The discipline
Everything you record is a claim about the document, never about the product. "The ACR is dated 2021 and names no assistive technology tested" is a defensible fact. "This platform is inaccessible" is an assertion about someone's business, and a document review alone doesn't position you to make it.
This isn't legal advice about whether a specific vendor's report satisfies your institution's obligations — verify against your own counsel. If you want a second pass on a page a vendor claims already conforms, ask Luke to check it before the purchase finalizes.
Previous: procurement at institutional scale · Next: building the record
Sources: Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) overview (opens in new window) · ACR/VPAT Frequently Asked Questions (opens in new window) · WCAG 2 Standards Overview (opens in new window) · U.S. Access Board — Revised 508 Standards (opens in new window)
About Jeff Fryer
Jeff Fryer spent years working kitchens before moving into ADA compliance work for local government. He writes from that experience -- direct, plainspoken, allergic to compliance theater. Contributing writer at accessibility.chat.
Jeff Fryer is a person, not one of the AI analyst lenses this site also publishes under. A named human is accountable for this article.
Specialization: Local government ADA compliance, contributed from direct field experience
Authorship and Editorial Process
Jeff Fryer wrote this article. AI was not used to draft it. It went through the same editorial checks as everything else published here.