Assessing the accuracy of vendor-supplied accessibility documentation

Abstract

Structured Abstract:Purpose: In an effort to ensure vendor compliance with Section 508, some libraries have begun requesting Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs) or other documentation of accessibility compliance. The purpose of this paper is to assess the accuracy of vendor-supplied compliance documentation, and to identify common accessibility issues highlighted by the VPATs. A detailed discussion of vendor responses to each Section 508 checkpoint is provided in the Appendix. Design/methodology/approach: Researchers compared 17 VPATs with the results of an automated accessibility scan to identify inconsistencies and common problems. Findings: Vendors reported being fully compliant with 64% of the applicable VPAT items, and partially compliant with a further 24%. However, in 16 of 17 cases, there were discrepancies between the information on the VPAT and the results of the scan. Of the total 189 VPAT checkpoints we scanned, 19.6% had errors (meaning the information on the VPAT was inaccurate 19.6% of the time). Research limitations: Several VPAT checkpoints could not be automatically verified by the scan. Instead they require manual/visual verification, which we did not do. Because we only scanned three pages of each resource, we were not able to check all content. Practical implications: Vendor-supplied accessibility documentation should not be taken at face value, but requires verification and follow up to ensure its accuracy. This study also identified some of the most common accessibility issues, which will help both librarians and vendors improve their products and services. Originality/value: Other studies have analyzed the accessibility of library resources and specifically vendor databases, but none have assessed the accuracy of vendor-supplied Section 508 compliance documentation.Keywords: VPAT, Voluntary Product Accessibility Template, Section 508, Accessibility, Libraries Introduction:

Prioritizing Accessibility in the E-Resources Procurement Lifecycle: VPATs as a Practical Tool for E-Resource Acquisitions and Remediation Workflows at Academic Libraries

“…As DeLancey reported, VPATs can incorrectly be filled out by a vendor and is a claim of performance, although many vendors are starting to back up VPATs with accessibility testing. 12 Basically, librarians are considering whether a product complies with these levels to be fully compliant.…”

Defining, evaluating, and achieving accessible library resources

“…Another interesting area of focus has been the incorporation of accessibility into collection development policies as a mean of using our purchasing power to pressurize vendors into prioritizing accessibility (Dermody and Majekodunmi, 2011; Schmetzke, 2015; Ostergaard, 2015; Delancey and Ostergaard, 2016). Asking vendors to disclose their accessibility policies during the procurement process has become routine at some institutions, often by means of requesting a voluntary product accessibility template (VPAT), a government-created aid to help people buy institutions purchase products that meet Section 508 standards (Wakimoto and Soules, 2011; Billingham, 2014; Blechner, 2015; DeLancey, 2015; Falloon, 2015; Ostergaard, 2015; Riley-Huff, 2015; Delancey and Ostergaard, 2016; Mune and Agee, 2016; Ng, 2017). This has the potential to influence vendors to prioritize accessibility.…”

How Accessible is Our Collection? Performing an E-Resources Accessibility Review

“…The study found that, when compared to the accessibility tests, the vendor-supplied information was inaccurate 19.6% of the time. 8 As usability testing was beyond the scope of the ERM Unit's inventory, the existence of a VPAT was considered a positive indicator of accessibility.…”