What Is an Accessibility VPAT and Do I Need One?

A VPAT, or Voluntary Product Accessibility Template, is a standardized document that vendors use to describe how well their product or service conforms to accessibility standards. If you work in higher education procurement, IT, or disability services, the short answer is yes — you should be requesting VPATs from every technology vendor your institution evaluates. They are the single most efficient way to assess whether a product will help or hinder your accessibility obligations.

What Exactly Is a VPAT?

The VPAT is a template originally created by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) in partnership with the U.S. government. It provides a structured format for vendors to disclose the accessibility status of their products against recognized standards like WCAG 2.1, Section 508, and the European EN 301 549.

When a vendor completes a VPAT, the resulting document is called an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR). In practice, people often use "VPAT" and "ACR" interchangeably, but the distinction matters: the VPAT is the blank template, and the ACR is the filled-in report for a specific product. When you ask a vendor for their "VPAT," what you actually receive should be an ACR.

Who Creates VPATs, and Who Should Request Them?

Vendors are responsible for completing VPATs. The report is typically prepared by the vendor's accessibility team or by a third-party auditor they hire. There is no central authority that certifies or validates VPATs — they are self-reported, which is an important detail we will return to.

Procurement teams, IT departments, and accessibility coordinators at universities should be requesting VPATs during the evaluation phase of any technology purchase. This includes learning management systems, library databases, video platforms, document management tools, student information systems, and any other software that students or faculty will interact with.

Many institutions have formalized this by adding VPAT requirements to their procurement checklists. If yours has not, now is the time. With the ADA Title II accessibility deadline approaching, demonstrating due diligence in vendor selection is no longer optional.

Understanding VPAT 2.5 Editions

The current version of the VPAT is 2.5, and it comes in several editions depending on which standards you need to evaluate against:

• WCAG Edition — Covers Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (2.0 and 2.1 at Level A and AA). This is the most universally relevant edition for higher education.
• Section 508 Edition — Covers the revised Section 508 standards required for U.S. federal agencies and any institution receiving federal funding.
• EN 301 549 Edition — Covers the European accessibility standard, relevant for institutions with international operations or partnerships.
• INT Edition — A combined international edition that incorporates all three standards into a single report.

For most U.S. universities, requesting the INT Edition or at minimum the WCAG Edition provides the most comprehensive picture. If your institution receives federal funding — and nearly all do — the Section 508 Edition is also directly relevant.

How to Read a VPAT

A VPAT organizes accessibility criteria into tables. For each criterion, the vendor reports a conformance level using one of these terms:

• Supports — The product fully meets the criterion.
• Partially Supports — Some functionality meets the criterion, but gaps exist.
• Does Not Support — The product does not meet the criterion.
• Not Applicable — The criterion is not relevant to the product.

Each entry should include remarks and explanations that describe specific details. This column is where the real information lives. A VPAT that says "Partially Supports" without explaining what works and what does not is not giving you enough to make a decision.

Red Flags to Watch For

Because VPATs are self-reported, they vary widely in quality and honesty. Here are warning signs that should prompt further investigation:

• Every criterion marked "Supports" with no remarks. No product is perfect. A VPAT claiming full conformance across the board with no elaboration is likely not the result of rigorous testing.
• Vague or boilerplate language in the remarks column, such as "We are committed to accessibility" without specifics.
• Outdated VPATs that reference VPAT 1.x or WCAG 2.0 only. Current reports should use VPAT 2.5 and address WCAG 2.1.
• No date or version number. A VPAT should specify exactly which product version was evaluated and when.
• Refusal to provide a VPAT. If a vendor cannot or will not produce one, treat that as a significant risk factor.

When in doubt, ask the vendor to clarify specific conformance claims. Better yet, conduct your own testing on critical workflows. VPATs are a starting point for evaluation, not a finish line.

Why Universities Should Require VPATs from Every Vendor

Accessibility is not just about your own content — it extends to every tool in your digital ecosystem. A single inaccessible platform can create barriers for students with disabilities, expose your institution to complaints, and undermine broader compliance efforts.

Requiring VPATs establishes a baseline expectation that vendors take accessibility seriously. It also creates a paper trail showing that your institution performed due diligence, which matters if accessibility complaints arise.

This applies to documents as well as software. PDFs, presentations, and other files generated by or distributed through vendor platforms need to meet WCAG standards too.

Bringing It All Together

VPATs are one piece of a larger accessibility strategy. They help you evaluate what you are buying, but you also need to ensure that the content your institution creates and distributes — course materials, administrative documents, research publications — meets the same standards.

If your team is working through document accessibility alongside vendor evaluation, Aelira's PDF accessibility tools can help you scan and remediate documents at scale, so you can focus your attention on the procurement decisions that shape your institution's long-term compliance posture.