Prioritizing Accessibility in the E-Resources Procurement Lifecycle: VPATs as a Practical Tool for E-Resource Acquisitions and Remediation Workflows at Academic Libraries
Open accessAbstract
Libraries within academic institutions need to comply with federal disability law. Specifically, the Section 508 Amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires electronic and information technology to be fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. Hence, Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs), provided by vendors based on their reported compliance to the recently updated Section 508, are being collected by librarians. However, they can be difficult to understand and are not always reliable, so VPAT verification and functional testing are recommended. The purpose of this paper is to document how two major public university libraries are approaching VPATs in a workable and time-effective manner during e-resource acquisitions and remediation workflows.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Falloon and O'Reilly (2020) document that two public university libraries incorporated VPATs into acquisitions and remediation workflows.
“Falloon and O'Reilly (2020) document how two public university libraries incorporated Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs) into acquisitions and remediation workflows, noting that VPATs can be difficult to interpret and are not always reliable without verification and functional testing.”
From From Compliance to Inclusion (2026) · cites this paper as Falloon and O'Reilly (2020)
VPATs can be difficult to interpret and are not always reliable without verification and functional testing.
“Falloon and O'Reilly (2020) document how two public university libraries incorporated Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs) into acquisitions and remediation workflows, noting that VPATs can be difficult to interpret and are not always reliable without verification and functional testing.”
From From Compliance to Inclusion (2026) · cites this paper as Falloon and O'Reilly (2020)
Work on LibGuides and procurement illustrates that accessibility is a shared responsibility that spans local content creation and external vendor ecosystems.
“Work on LibGuides and procurement (Hopper, 2021;Falloon & O'Reilly, 2020) further illustrates that accessibility is a shared responsibility that spans local content creation and external vendor ecosystems.”
From From Compliance to Inclusion (2026) · cites this paper as Falloon & O'Reilly, 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Faye O'Reilly and Samuel K. Willis, "Enhancing Visibility of Vendor Accessibility Documentation," Information Technology & Libraries 37, no. 3 (September 2018): 12-28, doi:10.6017/ital.v37i3.10240. · DOI
- Christopher S. Guder, "Making the Right Decisions About Assistive Technology in Your Library," in Making Libraries Accessible: Adaptive Design and Assistive Technology, ed. C. Booth, Library Technology Reports, vol. 48, 7 (Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 2012), 20.
- Laura Delancey, "Assessing the Accuracy of Vendor-Supplied Accessibility Documentation," Library Hi Tech 33, no. 1 (2015): 103-13.
- Jennifer Tatomir and Joan C. Durrance, "Overcoming the Information Gap: Measuring the Accessibility of Library Databases to Adaptive Technology Users," Library Hi Tech 28, no. 4 (2010): 37; and Suzanne L. Byerley and Mary Beth Chambers, "Accessibility and Usability of Web-Based Library Databases for Non-Visual Users," Library Hi Tech 20, no. 2 (2002): 173.
- Laura DeLancey and Kristen Ostergaard, "Accessibility for Electronic Resources Librarians," Serials Librarian 71, no. 3-4 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2016.1254134. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ehikioya, E. E. (2026) · International Journal of Librarianship · doi:10.23974/ijol.2026.vol11.2.595
“Falloon and O’Reilly (2020) document how two public university libraries incorporated Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs) into acquisitions and remediation workflows, noting that VPATs can be difficult to interpret and are not always reliable without verification and functional…”
- Authors
- Falloon, K. A., & M. O’Reilly, F.
- Affiliations
- Presenters
- Corresponding author
- Falloon, Kerry A.
- Venue
- The Serials Librarian
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-02-20
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 1-4
- Pages
- 130-140
- ISSN
- 0361-526X (ISSN-L)
- 1541-1095
- OpenAlex
- W3008975179
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Serials Librarian (publishedVersion)
- Holmes Museum Of Anthropology (Wichita State University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Collection Development and Digital Resources
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
- Keywords
- Section 508, accessibility, academic libraries, functional testing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
