How universities review a VPAT, and what they flag

Red flags from published university review guides, and how to avoid each one.

You do not have to guess how your report will be read. Several universities publish their review methods. This guide draws on the University of Illinois quick VPAT review and Kent State's guide to a good VPAT.

What reviewers check first

The version and description. Do they match what is being bought?
The date. Illinois looks for under 12 months, ideally under 6. Kent State treats anything over two years as too old.
The evaluation methods. Who tested, with which assistive technology, using which methods?

Every criterion is marked Supports.
Only automated testing was used.
Testing used only one screen reader.
Boilerplate answers, or text copied from another product.
A criterion is marked Supports, while its remarks describe a problem.
Many criteria are marked Not Applicable, especially for features the product has.
Non-standard terms such as pass or fail.
"Supports with Exceptions", a term removed in December 2018.
Ratings with no remarks, and failures with no examples.
Does Not Support with no commitment or timeline.
A report that is not accessible itself.

University of Illinois reviewers do quick checks of their own and compare the results with your report. They name five criteria:

2.1.1 Keyboard and 2.4.7 Focus Visible: use only the keyboard, and see where focus is.
2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide: automatic movement stops or can be paused.
2.4.1 Bypass Blocks: a skip link comes first.
3.3.1 Error Identification: errors are clear, with suggestions.

Test these yourself before you test anything else. If you mark them Supports and they fail in five minutes, the rest of your report loses its value.

The free Reviewer Check applies these red flags and the ITI requirements to a report you upload.