WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: VPAT version for AODA

for

From: Philip Kiff
Date: Mar 25, 2020 1:10PM

I'm curious about this as well. In fact, I didn't even realize that
there was a VPAT that might theoretically be used to make a claim about
compliance with the AODA or WCAG. I had always thought of the VPAT as
something related to requirements of the US government and Section 508.

Here in Ontario in Canada where the AODA applies, I can't say that I've
EVER seen anyone make reference to a VPAT other than in the context of
compliance with U.S. regulations. But maybe I've just been out of  the
loop on these things?

Lastly, Mitchell, I noticed a couple problems and limitations with the
sample VPAT documents currently available from the ITI site here:
https://www.itic.org/policy/accessibility/vpat

First, these are not formatted using the current MS Word docx file
format? I would recommend updating all files to using current docx
format. A user of such a form can't even run the rudimentary, but still
useful, built-in MS Word accessibility checker without upgrading the
file format to docx.

Second, they contain font sizes that I consider too small to be
considered accessible in a default context (11 point Calibri). I would
recommend reformatting the documents to use a minimum 12-point font
size. Possibly use Legal-size paper (landscape orientation) instead of
Letter-size paper if you want to preserve more space for user input?

Lastly, I'm not sure that Microsoft Word is even the best format for
this kind of file. Is this what everyone in the US is filling in when
they talk about VPATs? It seems to me that this is actually a fillable
form, and as such, especially given the number of tables and use of
subheadings within individual tables, I wonder if these VPAT files might
not be better formatted as accessible PDF forms? Or maybe that is what
you intend consumers of these files to do with them? Regardless, on
first impression, I have to say that they don't immediately  inspire me
to start jumping in to use them for AODA compliance.

I would welcome any corrections or clarifications on all this, however,
as I really don't know hardly anything about VPATs, and that's why I'm
wondering.

With sincere curiosity,

Philip Kiff
D4K Communications

On 2020-03-25 01:33, Mitchell Evan wrote:
> Hi Logan,
>
>> I'd like to chime in and state that if this is related to AODA, the City
> of Ottawa will not accept a VPAT as it still isn't relevant to us. We have
> vendors submit assessments utilizing the WCAG-EM Tool.
>
> I agree the WCAG-EM Report Tool
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/report-tool/#!/ > can produce excellent WCAG
> reports, but I'm curious — what aspects of VPAT 2.x
> <https://www.itic.org/policy/accessibility/vpat> have been problematic? If
> the WCAG section in VPAT hasn't worked well for Ottawa's needs, then I'd
> like to understand what's lacking and see if we can get it fixed, either in
> the VPAT template itself or in its instructions for vendors.
>
> The WCAG edition of VPAT and the International edition of VPAT might be new
> to some folks here. They are meant to help buyers and regulators compare
> accessibility reports from different vendors easily, while vendors
> shouldn't have to rewrite the same accessibility findings in multiple
> report formats.
>
> (Multiple languages, that's another matter.)
>
> Cheers,
> Mitchell
>
> Mitchell Evan
> +1 (510) 375-6104
> <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Twitter @mitchellrevan
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/mitchellrevan/
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of
>> Logan Trafford
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 2:28 PM
>> To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 180, Issue 25
>>
>>
>> I'd like to chime in and state that if this is related to AODA, the City
>> of Ottawa will not accept a VPAT as it still isn't relevant to us. We have
>> vendors submit assessments utilizing the WCAG-EM Tool.
>> In terms of PDF, while the legislation only states they need to be WCAG
>> 2.0 AA conformant, assuming you consider a PDF as part of the "web content"
>> definition, the better standard you should use is PDF U/A, Those
>> documents can be validated by using either the free PAC (PDF Accessibility
>> Checking
>> Tool) or the free CommonLook Validator tool.
>>
>> Logan Trafford
>> Web Accessibility Coordinator
>> City of Ottawa
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 2:03 PM < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Send WebAIM-Forum mailing list submissions to
>>> <EMAIL REMOVED>
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> http://list.webaim.org/mailman/listinfo/webaim-forum
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> <EMAIL REMOVED>
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> <EMAIL REMOVED>
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of WebAIM-Forum digest..."
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>> 1. Re: VPAT version for AODA (Lisa Snider)
>>> 2. Re: VPAT version for AODA (Sudheer Babu)
>>> 3. Re: VPAT version for AODA (Karlen Communications)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Lisa Snider < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>>> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>>> Cc:
>>> Bcc:
>>> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 07:47:47 -0300
>>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] VPAT version for AODA Hi Sudheer,
>>>
>>> Currently, the AODA Information and Communications Standard is based
>>> on WCAG. So the regular VPAT will do for it. However, look for the ICS
>>> Review that hasnt been put into the final revised version (phase 2
>>> particularly)... the government may or may not accept that Review.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Lisa
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
> > > >