The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Accessibility Rubric This rubric is intended to be a supplement to the accessibility conformance data that will be gathered during the procurement process. It is available to the 1Ed Tech member community as a shared resource to share accessibility information. It is not meant to substitute for accessibility conformance documentation, such as an accessibility conformance report (ACR) based on a voluntary product accessibility template (VPAT) or any independent accessibility evaluation or assessment of technical standards. The rubric is intended to be completed by a qualified representative of the supplier, either an employee or a contractor hired to complete the form with sufficient experience and expertise in accessibility principles to complete the form. Throughout the rubric, you will see places where clients of the supplier have been able to add their feedback regarding the product and the supplier’s commitment to accessibility. Completed rubrics are reviewed by the Trusted Apps Accessibility TaskForce of 1EdTech prior to publication.
Product description Product assessed Product version Date of version release Date of review Company accessibility contact:
Notes about platform vs. embedded tools: Please specify how this product is being reported and whether or not this review includes just the platform and/or any embedded tools.
Completer of the form Completed by Role How are you qualified to answer accessibility questions? For instance, do you have IAAP certification, badges or other credentials that indicate your accessibility-related expertise?
Client information Type of institution How long have you worked with this supplier?
Are you willing to serve as a reference for the supplier?
Date product was evaluated Please describe the use case utilized when completing the review.
Information and Documentation
| Item # |
| Description |
| Other accessibility vetting efforts |
| Scoring |
| 1 |
| Does the supplier have a publicly available statement regarding accessibility? |
| Aspire |
| Supplier has a comprehensive statement that includes identification of a standard and associated conformance documentation. Statement may also include information about accessibility development and conformance testing conducted by the supplier, including compatibility with assistive technology. |
| General statement of accessibility conformance. May identify a standard followed by the company. May or may not include accessibility conformance documentation or contact information to obtain additional information. |
| No public statement. |
| 2 |
| Does the supplier provide accessibility conformance documentation? |
| Documentation completed by third party accessibility consultant, HECVAT accessibility questions and/or individual state documentation requirements |
| Accessibility conformance report (a completed VPAT) has comprehensive detail about how the criteria are met. May also provide information about alternative access options if needed. |
| Accessibility conformance report (completed VPAT) has minimal detail about how the criteria are met. |
| No documentation available. |
| 3 |
| Are the documents shared by the supplier accessible? |
| Fully accessible documents. |
| Minimal accessibility errors. |
| Documents are not accessible and contain major errors. |
| 4 |
| How long ago was the accessibility conformance documentation completed and/or updated? |
| Less than 12 months prior to the completion date of the rubric. |
| 12-18 months prior to completion date of the rubric. |
| 18+ months prior to the completion date of the rubric. |
| 5 |
| Does the supplier have a documented roadmap for accessibility features and enhancements? |
| Supplier communicates (verbally or in writing) about planned accessibility improvements/enhancements and includes projected timelines, contingencies and updates as available. |
| Minimal information about planned accessibility improvements/enhancements. |
| Accessibility roadmap is not available. |
Client feedback and/or input regarding information and documentation Was your experience consistent with the information reported above? Please provide additional insights as necessary.
Procurement Process and Communication
| Item # |
| Description |
| Other accessibility vetting efforts |
| Scoring |
| 1 |
| Does the supplier provide a demonstration of accessibility (features) as part of the sales process? |
| Led by accessibility and/or technical staff; deep dive that includes discussion of conformance testing (including significant detail) and compatibility with commonly used assistive technology |
| Accessibility features are discussed or demonstrated at a high level; broad overview without significant detail about conformance testing and compatibility with commonly used assistive technology. |
| Accessibility features are not addressed or only addressed perfunctorily. |
| 2 |
| How are accessibility gaps identified? |
| HECVAT accessibility questions or individual state forms re: accessibility |
| There is a comprehensive strategy employed by the supplier to include qualified accessibility professionals, native users of assistive technology, third party accessibility consultants and others to reflect a variety of experiences. |
| Supplier shares strategy and results for in-house accessibility testing and evaluations. |
| Gaps are not identified. |
| 3 |
| How does the supplier communicate known accessibility gaps to the customer? |
| Proactive, intentional communication (including social media as applicable) with the customer when gaps are identified. |
| Information will be provided upon request. |
| Gaps are not identified and not shared. |
| 4 |
| Does the supplier have a process to report accessibility specific concerns and issues? |
| Supplier provides a dedicated accessibility related customer and/or technical support mechanism. Timelines for responses by the accessibility related support are provided. |
| Supplier channels accessibility requests via existing customer and/or technical support mechanisms. Timelines for responses by the customer service team are provided by the supplier. |
| No process is identified. Timelines for responses are not identified or shared. |
Client feedback and/or input regarding procurement process and communication Was your experience consistent with the information reported above? Please provide additional insights as necessary.
Accessibility Conformance
| Item # |
| Description |
| Other accessibility vetting efforts |
| Scoring |
| 1 |
| How has accessibility been included in the design of the product? |
| Accessibility was integrated into all stages of the design and development, including consultation with native assistive technology users. |
| Testing for accessibility conformance was completed during development. |
| Accessibility was not part of the design considerations. |
| 2 |
| Does the product claim conformance with one or more industry standards? |
| Verified by a third party accessibility consultant; HECVAT accessibility questions; State required forms |
| Conforms to international standards beyond minimal thresholds (e.g., AA or AAA specification of W3C Accessibility Guidelines). |
| Conforms to international standards at customary minimal thresholds (e.g., A specification of W3C Accessibility Guidelines). |
| No standard stated but indicates some accessibility. |
| 3 |
| Does the supplier integrate accessibility testing into the product management process, including manual and automated testing? |
| Full accessibility evaluations, including automatic and manual assessments, are conducted. |
| Automated testing tools are used. |
| No testing is conducted. |
| 4 |
| Does the supplier ensure that subcontractors conform to the same accessibility standards of the supplier? |
| Subcontractor work is evaluated and vetted at regular intervals to ensure accuracy of work product. |
| Rely on subcontractor self-report or automated testing to determine. |
| Subcontractor work is not reviewed. |
| 5 |
| Does the supplier provide training to team members regarding accessibility? |
| Third party training vendor hired. |
| Role-based training is provided on a regular, continuing basis. |
| General accessibility training is provided on a periodic basis. |
| No company sponsored training is provided. |
| 6 |
| Were native or full-time assistive technology users included in the evaluation of the product? |
| Third party accessibility consultant hired to evaluate. |
| Intentional efforts to have native/FT assistive technology users integrated into the evaluation and QA strategy and processes. |
| Reports collected from clients or interested parties and shared with development teams. |
| Not intentionally included. |
Client feedback and/or input regarding accessibility conformance
| Item # |
| Description |
| Other accessibility vetting efforts |
| Scoring |
| 7 |
| Were evaluations of the product consistent with the information provided by the supplier? |
| Third party accessibility consultant hired to complete forms; HECVAT; State mandated forms completed |
| Consistent findings with supplier provided information but may include some minor accessibility issues. |
| Results were consistent but additional moderate accessibility issues were also discovered. |
| Little to no consistency with the information provided; significant accessibility concerns were discovered. |
| 8 |
| What follow-up occurred after accessibility issues were discovered? |
| Proactive communication about the issues, plans and projected timelines to address them. |
| Follow-up and communication happen upon request. |
| Very little follow up and communication. |
| 9 |
| Did the supplier seek client input on prioritization of accessibility improvements? |
| Input was sought prior to development of remediation plans. |
| Remediation plans were developed and shared; feedback was accepted. |
| No input sought. |
| 10 |
| How has the supplier remediated accessibility issues as you have worked with them? |
| There have been multiple or high priority accessibility improvements to the product over the past 12 months, including regular and/or ongoing communication with clients. |
| There have been minimal or low priority accessibility improvements over the past 12 months with some communication with clients. |
| Not aware of any accessibility improvements over the past 12 months. |
Other insights or feedback that you would like to share from the client perspective?
Alternatives and Accommodations
| Item # |
| Description |
| Other accessibility vetting efforts |
| Scoring |
| 1 |
| Does the product allow for individual personalization of the interface and other capabilities (user preferences)? |
| Full personalization that is persistent with a user’s profile is possible. |
| Some personalization is possible but limited. |
| No personalization. |
| 2 |
| Does the supplier provide guidance or suggestions for alternatives or workarounds to address accessibility gaps? |
| Supplier has suggestions based on accessibility needs and engages with the client to discuss those needs and develop alternatives. |
| Supplier has not engaged in conversations about alternatives in the past but engages in conversations with the client to brainstorm and discuss. |
| Supplier has limited to no suggestions regarding alternatives or possible accommodations. |
Client feedback and/or input regarding alternatives and accommodations Did you have to provide an accommodation or a work around to a user for this product because they could not access it?
If so, how was the user not able to use the product as designed?
If so, what steps did you take to accommodate that user?
Other insights or feedback that you would like to share from the client perspective?
Scoring:
Total score:
Scale:
| Emerging: | 0-10 points |
| Advancing: | 11-21 points |
| Optimized: | 22+ points |