Context

Assistive technology (AT) exists to provide individuals with disabilities with the ability to access digital content and tools in an independent manner regardless of their diagnoses. For example, blind individuals cannot see the monitor to determine what software and applications are available on the computer. To navigate the desktop, the blind user may use a tool called a screen reader. A screen reader does as its name suggests: it narrates the available options so the user can interact with programs, documents and other resources by using keyboard commands. Applications must meet certain technical specifications to be compatible with screen readers and other assistive technology and be considered accessible. Technical reviews of accessibility tend to focus on this evaluation.

It is important to note that technical evaluations of accessibility are only one part of a comprehensive approach to increasing access for students with diverse abilities despite the emphasis they have received in the procurement process. The TrustEd Apps Accessibility Rubric has been designed to support this holistic, comprehensive approach to accessibility evaluation. Accordingly, the rubric is not intended to replace existing accessibility conformance documentation secured as part of a procurement process; it is meant to supplement it. Rather than asking how the product meets accessibility standards, the rubric’s prompts include questions about the testing conducted by the supplier, how accessibility has been included in the design of the product and what training has been provided to development staff. It also includes considerations of the supplier’s posture regarding accessibility, including policy statements, dedicated accessibility support for clients, and the supplier’s understanding of and approach to the need for potential alternatives as part of an overall accommodation strategy.

The rubric provides a benefit to 1Ed Tech member institutions, particularly those institutions that do not have staff with deep accessibility expertise needed to complete technical assessments of accessibility. It allows member institutions to review the information submitted by suppliers who complete the rubric, as well as any comments shared by member institutions who have evaluated the tool. This benefit is twofold: it allows member institutions to access expert technical reviews they typically would not be able to access while allowing suppliers to provide standard information to multiple potential clients without having to complete individual forms from potential clients asking for similar information in various formats. Development of this rubric fills multiple needs in the educational landscape and influences the market by emphasizing the importance of accessibility as institutions continue to build inclusive learning environments.

In Scope

The rubric is one component of a comprehensive accessibility assessment and evaluation. It provides insight into multiple aspects of creating access to educational opportunities and resources. Specifically, the following are in scope for the rubric:

• Self evaluation completed by the supplier with the task force flagged with concerns for the first year.
• Holistic assessment of accessibility that allows the supplier to provide insight into their approach to policy, procedures, product design and professional development, among others.
• Opportunity for member institutions to receive consultation, guidance, and advice regarding accessibility from others with accessibility expertise.
• Supports a comprehensive approach to assessing accessibility of their selected learning tools / educational technologies.
• Reduces redundancy and duplicative efforts by streamlining the availability of accessibility information provided by the supplier community.
• Increases access to education for students of all abilities by emphasizing the importance of accessibility in creating inclusive learning environments.

Out of Scope

It is important to note that the rubric is not intended to duplicate existing work nor is it intended to create additional standards in an already crowded field. The rubric is intended to allow suppliers to provide additional insight into how the company has approached accessibility and worked to create access. To that end, the following are not in scope:

• Technical accessibility review mapped to specific technical criteria.
• Completion of accessibility conformance documentation.
• Certification of accessibility conformance.
• Legal advice regarding institutional or supplier responsibility under state or federal law.

Key Concepts & Elements

This rubric is designed to gather information about and assess a supplier's stance and level of activity to address accessible and equitable access to content, tools and resources designed for an educational setting. The tool provides a framework to evaluate four key areas for understanding the level of maturity in making all content, tools and resources accessible to all learners. This rubric gathers information in the following areas:

1. Supplier information
2. Completer of the form
3. Client Information
4. Information and Documentation
5. Procurement Process and Communication
6. Accessibility Conformance
   a. Client feedback and/or input regarding accessibility conformance
7. Alternatives and Accommodations

Differentiation from Other Vetting Instruments such as HECVAT and VPAT?

Accessibility conformance documentation is widely available in the field. This rubric is meant to supplement that guidance. Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACRs) based on the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) are commonly referenced by the supplier and education communities when discussing accessibility. An ACR provides suppliers with an opportunity to indicate how the product meets specific WCAG or revised Section 508 standards. These technical standards provide suppliers with an opportunity to demonstrate the technical accessibility of their products but offers little opportunity to comment on other ways the supplier works to increase access. The rubric fills this gap.

The Higher Education Community Vendor Assessment Toolkit (HECVAT] is used within the Higher Education community to assess suppliers of cloud infrastructure services. Within this tool there is a section addressing accessibility with eight questions to gather foundational information as to how the software addresses accessibility. The most recent version of the HECVAT available when writing this document (v3.04) covers many aspects of supplier-provided services such as company history, business continuity plan, change management process, physical security, firewalls, and networking. These aspects are important to establish a basis for supplier relationships, contracts with institutional specific procurement requirements, and so on. However, when incorporating 3rd party tools into a learning environment, the need is slightly different. Because these 3rd party tools play a supporting role in the overall learning environment, teachers and students often treat them as an extension of a learning environment.

Criteria

The 1EdTech TrustEd Apps Accessibility Rubric is split into four sections.

• Information and Documentation: This section reflects that there are different approaches that suppliers may take to complete and share accessibility conformance documentation. It is important to note that the rubric is not intended to replace accessibility conformance documentation and does not offer additional web accessibility standards for the supplier to meet. Instead, the rubric allows the supplier to indicate whether or not they have a publicly available accessibility statement, how conformance documentation has been developed, how they approach the accessibility of documents shared and roadmap considerations.
• Procurement Process and Communication: In this section, the supplier is able to share additional insight into how it approaches sharing accessibility information with potential clients through the procurement process. The rubric asks the supplier to identify how accessibility features are shared during product demonstrations, how accessibility gaps are identified and shared with clients, and what mechanisms are in place for clients to share concerns, errors and defects related to accessibility with the supplier when the product is in use.
• Accessibility Conformance: As it has been stated, the intention of the rubric is to not duplicate efforts related to measuring accessibility conformance. However, it is important for suppliers to have the opportunity to describe how they have approached assessing accessibility conformance as they have developed and marketed their products. This section of the rubric asks the supplier to provide insight about how accessibility has been included in the design, development, testing and release of the product. The supplier also has the opportunity to share their approach to professional development and training for its own staff regarding accessibility. This section of the rubric also includes a series of questions that may be answered by clients who currently use the product. These questions include assessing if the client’s evaluations of the product were consistent with the accessibility conformance documentation provided, how the supplier approached addressing accessibility issues, including how client feedback was obtained.
• Alternatives and Accommodations: The final section of the rubric addresses how the use of the product may be accommodated and what role the supplier can and will play in determining accommodations for individual students.

Each section of the rubric also provides an area for existing clients of the supplier to provide feedback on that section’s questions and their experiences working with the supplier.

Goals

The first iteration of the TrustEd Apps Accessibility Rubric is intended to help institutions and suppliers develop or further refine their approach to meeting the needs of students with a broad range of auditory, visual, physical, and cognitive abilities. It will help institutions and suppliers understand and address accessibility in a holistic way under the following conditions:

• Suppliers will conduct self-evaluations of the accessibility of their products against this rubric by submitting their responses to the rubric criteria. This will allow suppliers to provide additional insight into their approach to accessibility to member institutions.
• 1EdTech to provide a quality assurance check, prior to publishing.
• Member institutions who have procured and used the supplier’s product may provide feedback on the completed rubric through an email link which will be directed to the appropriate 1EdTech contact.
• The rubric evaluation submission will be available to member institutions to use in their vetting of educational technology purchases at their institutions. It will result in a list of submitted supplier self-evaluated products for members while reducing redundancy and duplication of effort for the supplier community.

Who Can Submit Reviews

The TrustEd Apps Accessibility Rubric is designed as a self-evaluation rubric to be completed by a representative of the supplier. As such, suppliers will submit reviews of their products. Once published, all submissions can be viewed by other members. The app vetting report itself will be viewable under the product’s entry in the TrustEd Apps Directory and TrustEd Apps Management Suite.

Governance & Recourse

• Supplier reviews are submitted and unpublished.
• 1EdTech receives a notification for every submission.
• All reviews are initially unpublished until 1EdTech provides a quality assurance check.
• Suppliers may submit their own evaluation of their products.
• 1EdTech will work with the reviewer and the supplier if there is feedback about the review.
• If a supplier’s product or accessibility policy has changed significantly, it may not match an existing review which had been previously submitted. In that case, suppliers may submit a note for 1EdTech to attach to an existing review. Suppliers may also ask for their now outdated reviews to be removed and revetted.
• On an annual basis, suppliers will be notified to review completed reviews to determine if updates are needed.

Review Submission

All rubrics are scored based on the 21 required prompts completed by the supplier with a maximum score of 42 points. The scale for scoring is as follows:

• Emerging: 1-12 points
• Advancing: 13 - 26 points
• Optimized: 27 - 42 points

Notification & Versioning

• The latest rubric version will be posted on the 1EdTech website (put link here).
• For clarity in product reviews, rubric versions should be kept consistent for a year. 1EdTech will notify members of major rubric changes. Minor changes, such as corrections for typos, may be made without notification.
• Changes to the rubric will not affect existing ratings in the product directory - because each review lists the version of the rubric which was used.
• When a new rubric version is released, it should be used for any new reviews for the upcoming year.
• The following process will be used for making updates to the rubric:
  • The TrustEd Apps Accessibility Task Force will review feedback on an annual basis for major changes.
  • Minor changes, such as corrections for typos, may be requested and updated directly by 1EdTech during the year.
  • Changes to the rubric will need to go through an approval process to draft and approve a new spec document, according to 1EdTech Technical Board Policies and Procedures.

Version History

Version No. Release Date

Final Release 1.0 | TBD | The first, formal release of this document. This is released for public adoption.

Normative References

Section 508 Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act - 29 U.S.C. § 798. URL: https://www.section508.gov/ Information and Communications Technology Accessibility 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. URL: https://www.access-board.gov/ict/

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) W3C Accessibility Standards. June 29, 2022. URL: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/

Informative References

[HECVAT] Higher Education Community Vendor Assessment Toolkit Educause Higher Education Community Vendor Assessment Toolkit. April 2020. URL: https://library.educause.edu/resources/2016/10/higher-education-community-vendor-assessment-toolkit

Specification Images:

Parties to this Rubric

Information and Documentation

Procurement Process and Communication

Accessibility Conformance

Alternatives and Accommodations

Scoring:

Total score: 42 points