Digital Accessibility

This service is for assessing or enabling accessibility of academic software, enterprise applications, and electronic/digital resources, and could include accessibility reviews, defining standards, analysis, and/or end-user training and awareness.

VPAT Review

If the vendor hasn't provided a VPAT blank templates are available on the site for Information Technology Industry Council (ITIC). On that page, under Resources, you will see a list of links to different VPAT templates:

  • For web-based assets please use “VPAT 2.5 WCAG (November 2023) (November 01, 2023)”
  • For non-web content please use “VPAT 2.5 508 (November 2023) (November 01, 2023)”

The VPAT templates are found under the heading "Resources." We recommend using the following template:

  • VPAT 2.5 WCAG (November 2023) is based on Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

Instructions for completing the VPAT can be found at VPAT Training.

  • On that page see "VPAT Module 6: What Makes a Good ACR?" which opens a detailed Powerpoint.
    • A completed VPAT is technically an ACR but most people still call them VPATs.

Request VPAT Review

VPAT Score

Here is our working rubric for scoring VPATs. This is based on a rubric used by the state of Minnesota , combined with some more specific criteria that we came up with to fit our needs. Our rubric needs to balance two features of the VPAT: the number of WCAG 2.0 criteria that the vendor has marked "Supported" and the evaluation methods and documentation they include to show us that the software does indeed support these criteria.

The Total VPAT Score is and average of Criteria Score and Documentation Score. If the total score is 2.5 it should be rounded down to 2.

Criteria

  1. Clearly lacks significant accessible functionality. Supports 25% or less of applicable success criteria.
  2. Supports 26 - 49% of applicalbe criteria criteria. A score of 2 indicates that the vendor has determined their software has major accessibility issues.
  3. This is an average score. Supports 50-75% of applicable A and AA criteria with
  4. Supports more than 75% of the criteria
  5. Supports all or nearly all applicable A and AA criteria.

Documentation

  1. Provides little or no data. Has poor evaluation/documentation. Poor evaluation/documentation means that there is not enough data to be assured of accessibility or to be confident in the vendor’s ability to improve the solution’s accessibility.
  2. Has some evaluation/documentation, but lacks detail.
  3. Has good evaluation/documentation
  4. Vendor’s information indicates knowledge of how the solution supports each criterion and there is sufficient data to negotiate future improvements.
  5. The vendor demonstrates extensive knowledge of accessibility and is able to illustrate how the solution supports most or all criteria. Where the solution does not support criteria, the vendor provides a documented roadmap toward future compliance.

Please note the TDX ID for reference after receiving VPAT approval.

Risk Assessment

A member of the Accessibility Team will meet via Teams with the asset owner/functional/technical lead to go through the asset survey with them. 

Risk Assessment Score

Procured Asset Score

(Ignore if Internal)

  • High Risk = 145 - 71
  • Low Risk = 70 or below

Internal Dev Asset Score

(Ignore if Procured)

  • High Risk = 133 - 82
  • Med Risk= 81 - 41
  • Lo Risk = Below 41

Hands-on Testing

A hands-on review of the asset will be completed by a Digital Accessibility Team member.

 
Request VPAT Review

Service Offerings (1)

VPAT Review Request
Technology products (software and hardware) that are purchased through the university should have a VPAT acquired before purchase. The VPAT must then be reviewed before purchasing the technology product.