Congratulations @gbeckmann & colleagues on the favorable rating from WebAIM! I know that's been a goal for a while now so I'm sure it's nice to see some tangible reward for your efforts, beyond of course the benefits for Canvas users of providing an accessible interface.
Regarding the VPAT, I especially appreciate your transparency. At the University of Washington, we educate people who are making IT purchasing decisions to consider the VPAT a conversation starter. It won't give us a full understanding of whether and how particular user groups will be able to interact with the product, but it provides a starting point, helping us to know where to look as we evaluate products and what questions we should be asking the vendor.
If a product claims 100% accessibility (i.e., rated "Supports" on all success criteria) that's a red flag for us, and generally is an indication that the vendor is either not being transparent or they don't really understand the success criteria.
So I consider it a positive that your VPAT includes many success criteria that are rated "Partially supports", and the exceptions are documented (in general terms) in the Remarks and Explanations column. Acknowledging your shortcomings is a key first step in fixing them, and I trust that the exceptions have been logged and Instructure will be addressing those soon.
Again, congratulations! And thanks for your ongoing commitment to providing a product that everyone can use.
This discussion post is outdated and has been archived. Please use the Community question forums and official documentation for the most current and accurate information.