How to Read a VPAT for Library 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 your next database renewal.
An ebook platform or research database vendor is going to hand you — or your consortium — an Accessibility Conformance Report (opens in new window) at some point, and it's worth twenty minutes to actually read it rather than file it as proof you asked.
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 means 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 — for a database platform, does it cover both the search interface and the reader/viewer, since these are often 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, with actual assistive technology named.
Scope. States plainly what was and wasn't tested — silent scope means assume the gaps are hiding there.
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 — through your consortium if that's the channel — before spending more time on it.
Then read the content, and judge materiality for patrons
Read every row below full support and every remark under "Supports." Quote what you find rather than paraphrasing it. Judge materiality against what a patron actually needs: can they search the catalog with a keyboard? Can a screen reader user actually check out and open an ebook? A missing alt-text attribute on a decorative icon is not the same finding as a checkout flow that can't be completed 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 database 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 obligations — verify against your own counsel or consortium legal support. If you want a second pass on a page a vendor claims already conforms, ask Luke to check it before the next renewal.
Previous: procurement leverage for licensed platforms · 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.