Accessibility Town Hall Recap

Non-public software or technology that will be used in any capacity on campus (instruction, research, employee-use), will go through the accessibility workflow of the Procurement process. To streamline this process, it is helpful for requestors to provide as much information as possible from the beginning, including purpose, number and type of users, whether the product is used in instruction or research, etc. Departments with established vendor-client relationships should ask for VPAT documentation from the beginning, to allow the accessibility team to conduct a review sooner when the requisition comes in. Guidance can be found on the Vendor Management page.

Communication standards should align with established accessibility best practices, as outlined in the trainings that will be offered over the coming months. This includes ensuring that all attachments such as PDFs, Word documents, and presentation files are themselves accessible and properly formatted. In addition, meeting invitations, calendar requests, and embedded links should include descriptive text or alternative text where applicable, so that users of assistive technologies can clearly understand the purpose and destination of the content. These practices are essential to ensuring equitable access to information for all users and supporting the University's Title II accessibility obligations.

Publicly available and student-facing resources remain the highest priority; however, eRaider-protected content is also subject to these regulations. The Title II requirements apply not only to student access, but equally to faculty and staff access. Accordingly, internal resources must also meet accessibility standards consistent with Title II compliance.

Yes. The Accessibility Executive Committee, including the CFO and Provost, will review accessibility exception requests. Those seeking such exceptions must complete an accessibility exception request form. Contact the digital accessibility team to receive a copy of this required form.

We recognize that the April 2026 compliance deadline is rapidly approaching and that remediating course content mid-semester can present practical challenges. Through the upcoming trainings on creating accessible content, the University intends to demonstrate a good-faith effort toward compliance with the Title II regulations. Provided that faculty are making reasonable, documented efforts to improve the accessibility of their course materials—including participating in trainings and seeking assistance with content remediation—no penalties will be imposed at this time.

Government websites (such as USDA systems) are generally expected to meet federal accessibility requirements, but that does not automatically eliminate TTU's responsibility when those sites are required as part of instruction or training. If students are required to log in using TTU credentials, complete training, and receive a certificate, the site is effectively functioning as a required third-party instructional tool.

In these cases, TTU does not need to conduct a full internal accessibility audit, nor are faculty or staff expected to complete a VPAT on behalf of a federal agency. However, the University should exercise reasonable due diligence, which may include confirming the site's federal status, reviewing any publicly available accessibility statements, and ensuring a process exists to provide assistance or alternatives if a student encounters an accessibility barrier.

If the site becomes a recurring or program-level requirement, it should be flagged to IT and Digital Accessibility so it can be documented appropriately. The absence of a formal software request pathway for this scenario is recognized, and these situations are typically handled through case-by-case review rather than standard procurement workflows.

Yes. Information shared with graduate students for research purposes is considered student-facing instructional or academic content and should be made digitally accessible, particularly when it supports learning, training, evaluation, or degree progress. This includes materials such as screenshots of results, marked-up documents, and handwritten calculations shared as PDFs. While informal or iterative research communication may not require the same level of remediation as published course materials, accessibility should be considered in the format and method used to share information.

The same expectation applies to undergraduate researchers. The determining factor is not the student's level, but whether the material is being used as part of an academic or training activity.

If the student is enrolled for individual-level course credit, independent study, thesis, or dissertation hours, the accessibility expectation is stronger, as the materials directly support instruction and academic progress. In those cases, faculty should ensure that shared materials are accessible or that an accessible alternative is provided upon request.

In short, accessibility obligations are tied to how the material is used, not the format, medium, or student classification.

A faculty member's private or personal website is not required to meet University accessibility standards simply because it exists. However, when a private website is linked from an official TTU or departmental webpage, it creates a University-endorsed pathway.

In those cases, TTU is not responsible for remediating the private site, but departments should exercise caution. If the linked site contains required instructional materials, official program information, or student-facing content, accessibility concerns should be considered and an accessible alternative should be provided.

Best practice is to avoid linking to private websites for required content, or to clearly label such links as external and non-University managed. The accessibility responsibility always applies to TTU-controlled content and required materials, not to purely personal websites maintained independently by faculty.

Non-web-based applications are subject to the same regulations as web-based content. This ruling applies to all digital content, regardless of whether it is accessed through a web portal, mobile application, or a desktop software.

Yes, every Electronic Information Resource (EIR) will go through the same Procurement process. What will aid in this process is filling out an Intended Use of Technology (IUT) form, on which you can indicate whether the product is for research or instruction, and how many student/staff/faculty users there are. This information allows the accessibility team to make a determination on whether the product must have a VPAT on file and if the product presents any accessibility barriers.

When you curate a Springshare LibGuide, you are not responsible for remediating or correcting the accessibility of third-party resources that are owned and controlled by external organizations, such as scholarly databases or consortium-hosted platforms. The responsibility for the technical accessibility of those systems rests with the organizations that develop and maintain them.

That said, because LibGuides are official University web content, there is an institutional responsibility to exercise due diligence. This includes using vendor-provided accessibility documentation when available, avoiding presenting inaccessible resources as the only path to required content, and being transparent about known limitations.

You do not need to remove critical scholarly resources from a LibGuide solely because they are not fully accessible. Instead, best practice is to provide context (for example, noting accessibility limitations where known), offer alternative formats or assistance when possible, and direct users to library or accessibility support if they encounter barriers.

In short: you are responsible for the accessibility of the LibGuide itself and how resources are presented, but not for remediating external scholarly platforms you do not control.

The key issue with linking to external content in a course is whether that content becomes a required part of the instructional experience. If material is required for participation, assessment, or grading and the University does not control or cannot remediate that content a student who encounters accessibility barriers may be unable to access required course materials.

While faculty are not responsible for the accessibility of third-party websites themselves, linking to external content as a required course component creates a direct instructional dependency. In those cases, the University has an obligation to ensure students can access the material or to provide an accessible alternative.

External links used strictly as optional or supplemental resources generally present lower risk. However, once external content is integrated into required coursework, it creates a compliance and access obligation that must be considered in advance.

Labeling a material as "recommended" rather than "required" does not automatically make it exempt from accessibility requirements. If a recommended resource is closely tied to course success, learning outcomes, or participation, it still needs to be accessible. If students reasonably rely on the resource to succeed, even if it's technically optional, it should be accessible or have an accessible alternative.

Professional programs do not receive a blanket exemption from accessibility requirements. Federal disability law (ADA and Section 504) applies equally to all academic programs, including those with technical or clinical standards.

That said, professional programs may establish legitimate, essential technical standards that are fundamental to the nature of the program and the profession. Accessibility requirements do not require institutions to waive or fundamentally alter those essential requirements. Instead, the obligation is to provide reasonable accommodations that allow a qualified individual with a disability to meet those standards, where doing so does not result in a fundamental alteration or create an undue burden.

For example, a program may require the ability to accurately interpret diagnostic information, assess patient condition, or perform clinical evaluations. The focus must be on the essential function or outcome, not the specific sensory modality. Where possible, accommodations may allow a student to demonstrate competence using alternative methods or assistive technologies. However, if no reasonable accommodation would allow the student to meet an essential technical standard without fundamentally altering the program, the institution is not required to modify that requirement.

Importantly, this analysis is individualized and interactive, conducted through the disability services process, and cannot be resolved through categorical exclusions or assumptions about disability. Programs must ensure that technical standards are clearly documented, defensible, and directly tied to essential competencies, and that accessibility of digital course materials and platforms is maintained regardless of the outcome of any accommodation determination.

Required course activities should not rely on personal social media accounts. Accessibility and free-expression concerns arise most clearly when a social media page is being used to directly promote or represent TTU, rather than simply reflecting an individual's personal views or employment. Any social media used for official or instructional purposes must be reviewed for accessibility and have appropriate alternatives.

No. Departments are not expected to retroactively remediate all previously posted social media content. Accessibility efforts should focus on new and updated content going forward.

That said, if older social media posts are still being actively used for example, pinned posts, content linked from official websites, or posts that continue to direct users to essential University services those items should be reviewed and updated for accessibility when feasible. The goal is forward-looking compliance while addressing high-visibility or high-impact legacy content as needed.

Accessibility requirements do not require institutions to immediately discontinue essential academic resources when no fully accessible alternative exists. The focus is on meaningful access, risk management, and documented good-faith efforts, not cutting off core instructional or research materials.

In situations like this, the balance is achieved by continuing to provide essential electronic resources while actively working toward accessibility. To achieve this, work to secure VPATs, document vendor remediation timelines, and ensure that effective, timely accommodations or alternate access methods are available when barriers arise. Clear documentation of these efforts, along with ongoing vendor engagement and prioritization of high-impact issues, is critical.

Yes. You generally do not need to remove the dashboard.

WCAG 2.1 AA (Success Criterion 1.4.10 - Reflow) includes an exception for content where a two-dimensional layout is essential for meaning, such as data tables or maps. Since your dashboard functions as a data grid, it typically falls under this exception.

Recommendation: To ensure full accessibility and better usability, we recommend adding a prominent link immediately above the embed saying "View Full Screen Dashboard" (linking directly to the native Smartsheet URL). This allows users to interact with the data without the constraints of the website frame.

Yes, all courses must be made accessible. TTU will provide training and guidance on creating accessible content in Canvas and other instructional tools. Visit the Digital Accessibility Training & Events page for available trainings.

Silktide is used to monitor and evaluate the accessibility of University websites and web pages. Canvas, by contrast, includes its own built-in accessibility tools designed specifically for course content. Together, these tools support accessibility compliance across both public-facing websites and instructional content, while recognizing that different platforms require different remediation approaches.

Canvas includes a robust, built-in accessibility tool called Panorama, which allows faculty to scan, identify, and remediate accessibility issues within their course materials. Panorama evaluates common accessibility elements—such as document structure, headings, color contrast, alternative text, and readability—and provides guided recommendations for remediation directly within Canvas.

The Accessibility team will offer multiple trainings on how to use Panorama effectively, including how to interpret results, prioritize issues, and make practical corrections to course content. Panorama assigns an accessibility score to each item and uses a color-coded indicator to reflect overall accessibility. Green indicates that the content meets accessibility standards and is the target level we want faculty to achieve, while other colors signal areas that require attention or improvement. These tools are intended to support faculty in making incremental, manageable improvements toward full accessibility compliance.

Our goal is for courses to meet or exceed a 90% accessibility score, as this generally indicates that the most common and impactful barriers such as missing alt text, poor heading structure, and inaccessible documents have been addressed. However, the score itself is only one indicator. Some accessibility issues require manual review and remediation and may not be fully captured by an automated score.

Accessibility compliance for publisher-provided platforms is a shared responsibility, but the legal obligation ultimately rests with the University, not the publishing company. Vendors such as Pearson and McGraw Hill are responsible for designing accessible products and providing documentation that discloses accessibility conformance and known gaps. However, because these tools are required for coursework and delivered to students through Canvas, the institution cannot fully shift responsibility to the vendor. The University must perform due diligence, understand documented limitations, and ensure that students are not denied access by providing appropriate mitigation or accommodations when gaps exist. In short, vendors are responsible for building accessible platforms, but institutions remain accountable for the accessibility of the instructional technology they choose to require.

Panorama is built directly into Canvas and is available from within each course.

Log in to Canvas and open the course you want to review.

In the left-hand Course Navigation menu, locate and click Panorama.

If you do not see Panorama, scroll to the bottom and click Settings, then Navigation, and confirm that Panorama is enabled and saved.

Once inside Panorama, you will see an overview of your course's accessibility score along with flagged issues.

Select any item listed (pages, files, assignments, etc.) to view specific accessibility concerns and recommended fixes.

Panorama updates automatically as content is added or edited. It is intended as a proactive tool to help identify and resolve accessibility issues before students encounter barriers.

If Panorama does not appear in your course menu after checking Navigation, contact your instructional support or accessibility team for assistance.

You can view your course's accessibility score directly inside Canvas by clicking Panorama in the course navigation menu. Panorama provides an overall course score (green, yellow, or red) and also breaks that score down by individual items such as pages, files, and assignments. It is important to understand that the overall color is only a summary indicator. Even if a document or course shows as yellow overall, any red or "severe" issues identified within individual files still need to be addressed. Severe warnings typically indicate barriers that could prevent access for some users (for example, missing alt text on instructional images or improperly tagged PDFs) and are not considered acceptable simply because the overall score is yellow. The expectation is to remediate red/severe issues wherever feasible, regardless of the aggregate score, while using the overall score as a tool to help prioritize and track progress rather than as a pass/fail determination.

The Panorama accessibility score is viewed directly inside Canvas, not in a separate system.

When you open a course in Canvas, select Panorama from the course navigation menu. From there, you will see your overall course accessibility score along with a breakdown by individual items (pages, files, assignments, etc.). Clicking into any item shows the specific issues affecting that score and guidance on how to fix them.

There is no separate login or external dashboard for Panorama—the tool is fully integrated into Canvas and reflects the accessibility status of your course content in real time as items are published or updated.

Canvas accessibility reports (including Panorama) only score content that is published and visible to students. Unpublished pages, files, assignments, and modules are not included in the accessibility score.

You do not need to fully remediate all modules before publishing anything in order for the score to calculate. However, once content is published, any accessibility issues within that content will be reflected in the report and will affect the overall percentage.

Best practice is to use Panorama as a pre-publication check: review and fix accessibility issues while content is still unpublished, then publish once major issues—especially red/severe errors—have been addressed. This approach keeps your accessibility score accurate, avoids unnecessary drops when modules go live, and reduces the need for reactive fixes after students already have access.

In short: the report monitors published content only, but accessibility should be reviewed before publishing so errors are not introduced into the live course in the first place.

No. Creating two different sets of instructional materials, one accessible and one not, is not acceptable. Accessibility requirements are based on the principle of equal and non-discriminatory access to course content. All students must receive the same instructional materials in an accessible format.

Accessibility should be addressed proactively, not reactively. Faculty cannot rely on knowing in advance which students may have a disability or may later require assistive technology. Not all disabilities are visible, disclosed, or documented at the start of a course, and accessibility benefits many users beyond those with registered accommodations.

Built-in tools in Microsoft and Apple products that generate alt text for images, tables, and figures are appropriate to use and help streamline this process. The expectation is that the primary version of the document shared with all students includes accessibility features such as alt text, proper structure, and readable formatting, rather than creating separate versions for different audiences.

Yes, to both. Instructors of record are responsible for ensuring that required course materials are accessible. At the same time, TTU will provide training and guidance on creating accessible content in Canvas and other instructional tools. Visit the Digital Accessibility Training & Events page for available trainings.

We recognize that maps and organizational charts present distinct remediation challenges as they convey dense spatial information. Since solutions vary by content type, we strongly encourage scheduling an individual consultation with the Digital Accessibility Team.

As a general best practice, we recommend treating these assets as complex images. Rather than strictly modifying the graphic file itself, simply extract critical information such as directions or hierarchy and integrate it directly into the page body. This ensures equitable access for all users, and our team is available to assist you with this strategy.

Because maps often contain too much data for standard Alternative Text, you must use a two-step approach focused on the purpose of the map. First, give the image a brief Alt Text label (e.g., "Geologic Map of the Permian Basin"). Second, provide a Long Description in the surrounding text that summarizes the key trends, data, or conclusions the student is supposed to derive from the image.

If the map requires detailed spatial analysis that cannot be summarized in text (such as measuring distances or tracing complex fault lines), please contact the Student Disability Services office. In these specific cases, a student may require a tactile graphic (a raised-line map printed on special paper) or a raw data set to complete the assignment effectively.

A university-wide PDF remediation tool is currently being tested. When a determination is made on a university level, trainings will be provided on how to use that tool and remediate documents that must remain available.

A university-wide PDF remediation tool is currently being tested. Once an institutional determination is made, trainings will be provided on how to use this tool to remediate documents that must remain available. PDFs uploaded and used within Canvas can be evaluated for accessibility using Canvas's built-in accessibility tools; however, PDFs that exist outside of Canvas such as those hosted on websites, shared drives, or distributed through other platforms will be managed through the university-wide PDF remediation tool.

In addition, the Accessibility team will provide guidance on manual PDF remediation techniques, recognizing that there are multiple ways to improve document accessibility. These options may include correcting document structure, adding tags and reading order, applying proper headings, and remediating content at the source (e.g., Word or PowerPoint) before converting to PDF. Together, these approaches will give departments and faculty flexibility in selecting the most appropriate and efficient method for making their PDF content accessible.

Yes, alternative text must be added to all images, particularly those distributed via email or posted on social media. The Accessibility team will be announcing social media accessibility trainings, with multiple sessions offered in the coming months to support compliance and best practices.

To address the challenge of scanned content, we have three primary recommendations.

First, we are actively developing a university compliance PDF tool designed to assist you in verifying that these files meet accessibility standards.

Second, we strongly encourage locating the original electronic format of the text whenever possible. Utilizing a digital edition is significantly more accessible than scanning physical pages.

Finally, we will be offering upcoming training sessions focused on best practices for source documents. These will provide guidance on creating accessible content from the start and raising the overall quality of your files.

Remediation involves fixing the invisible structure of the PDF so that screen readers (software used by blind people) can read it correctly.

Visually, your document will look the same. The changes happen in the code of the file:

Tagging: We add digital labels to identify Headings, Paragraphs, Lists, and Tables. Without these tags, a screen reader sees the page as a jumbled mess of words.

Reading Order: We ensure the computer reads the text in the correct logical order (e.g., reading a two-column article down the first column before moving to the second).

Alt Text: We add hidden descriptions to images and charts so their meaning is conveyed effectively to users who cannot see them.

Making a scan accessible is a two-step process. First, you must run OCR to turn the "picture" of the words into selectable text. However, this only creates a raw wall of words without context. You must then complete the second, critical step of Tagging & Remediation. This involves applying invisible structure tags (like headings and reading order) so the screen reader knows how to navigate the document; for example, reading down the first column of an article rather than reading straight across the page into the second column. You cannot just "scan and post"; you must recognize the text and then verify the tags to ensure the document meets WCAG standards.

The Accessibility team will offer targeted, individualized trainings for faculty and staff on specific accessibility challenges, such as scientific images, charts, and maps. The goal of these sessions is to equip participants with the knowledge and skills needed to address accessibility issues independently, rather than relying on individual remediations by the team. Given current staffing limitations, this approach allows us to scale support effectively while empowering departments to make sustainable accessibility improvements.

We are currently exploring a PDF formation tool to determine if it can successfully automate the transition between text and equations. We are still testing this solution to see if it meets compliance standards.

If we determine that this tool is not up to par for complex University documents, we will recommend that you reach out to the Digital Accessibility Team. In that case, we will work with you directly to ensure your PDFs are represented correctly and meet WCAG 2.1 AA standards.

Generally, no.

While raw LaTeX is technically "text" and can be read by a screen reader, it is not considered an equitable alternative for most students. Listening to the raw syntax of a complex equation (e.g., "slash frac open brace x close brace over...") imposes a heavy cognitive load, making it extremely difficult to understand the mathematical concepts being taught.

Even when PDFs are circulated only internally, they should be accessible. Employees are not required to disclose disabilities, and institutions cannot assume that internal users do not rely on assistive technology. Under the ADA and Section 504, employees are entitled to equal access to the tools and information necessary to perform their job functions.

That said, remediation should follow a risk-based, prioritized approach. Documents that support employment processes, evaluations, decision-making, or required job duties should be accessible by default. For lower-risk or archival materials, departments should ensure there is a clear, timely, and documented process for providing accessible versions upon request.

A scholarship repository maintained by the Law Library may be treated as an archival collection for materials uploaded prior to April 2026, provided the content is not actively used for instruction, required coursework, or essential services. In those cases, the DOJ Title II rule does not require wholesale retroactive remediation of legacy materials.

However, new content uploaded after April 2026 must be accessible, and any archived PDFs that are later reused, linked from active webpages, or incorporated into instruction would need to be remediated at that time. The focus is on forward-looking compliance and remediation triggered by active use, not blanket retroactive cleanup of historical scholarship.

While InDesign does not have a "Check Accessibility" button like Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat, the majority of your accessibility work should still happen within InDesign. Think of the workflow this way: InDesign is for building, and Acrobat is for checking.

Do your work in InDesign: You can prevent most errors by mapping your Paragraph Styles to tags (H1, H2, P), adding Alternative Text to images, and organizing the reading order using the Articles panel.

Check your work in Adobe Acrobat: Once you export the PDF, use Acrobat's "Accessibility Full Check" tool to verify compliance and catch any technical errors you might have missed.

If you wait to fix everything in Acrobat, you are "remediating" (fixing) a broken file, which is much more difficult than building it correctly in InDesign from the start.

For the official step-by-step guide, please see Adobe's documentation on creating accessible PDFs.

Given the volume of existing PDFs, the expectation is prioritization and continuous improvement rather than full remediation by the deadline. The DOJ's focus is on providing meaningful access and showing a good-faith effort to identify and address barriers. Departments should focus first on content that is required for courses, services, employment, or decision-making, as well as materials that are frequently used or essential to completing tasks. Lower-risk or archival PDFs can be remediated over time, as long as there is a clear plan, documented progress, and a process for providing accessible versions promptly when needed.

Auto-generated captions alone are not compliant. To meet accessibility standards, captions must be manually reviewed and edited in YouTube Studio to correct errors in punctuation, terminology, and timing. In addition, presenters must verbally describe essential visual information during the recording, for example, explaining the content of a graph rather than saying "look at this" so the material is fully accessible to students who cannot see the screen.

Yes, but only if you already have the caption file. PowerPoint has an "Insert Captions" feature, but it requires you to upload a pre-written WebVTT (.vtt) file containing the text and timestamps. PowerPoint does not auto-generate these captions for you.

If you HAVE a .vtt file: You can right-click your video in PowerPoint, select Insert Captions, and upload the file.

If you DO NOT have a .vtt file (Recommended): The most efficient method is to Export your presentation as a Video (MP4) and upload it to YouTube or Canvas Studio. These platforms will automatically generate the captions for you, which you can then edit for accuracy.

The University already has an established process for captioning videos and video-based instructional tools. Faculty and staff do not need to manage this independently. To request captioning services, simply submit the captioning request form.

This process ensures captions meet accessibility standards and are appropriate for instructional and public-facing use.

For those who prefer to caption their own content, training on captioning best practices will also be made available. This training will cover accuracy requirements, common captioning errors, and how to properly review and edit auto-generated captions to ensure compliance.

It depends on the content. For your own lectures or slide narrations, you typically do not need a separate description track as long as you use "Integrated Description." This means you verbally describe any meaningful visual content (e.g., graphs, diagrams) as you present, ensuring students who cannot see the screen still receive the same information.

However, for third-party content (such as movie clips, animations, or documentaries) where visual action occurs without narration, a Conforming Alternate Description is required. Since you cannot easily talk over these videos, you must ensure the video includes an audio description track or provide a detailed text transcript that explicitly describes the visual action.

WCAG 2.2 is considered the "gold standard," however, these regulations only require that TTU meet WCAG 2.1 AA standards.

Yes, we have Silktide to test our website compliance and Panorama in Canvas to test our course content.

The Accessibility Committee plans to offer the trainings announced on Wednesday on an ongoing basis, beyond the April 2026 compliance deadline. Trainings will also be available by request.

The Digital Accessibility website will be shared and referenced during all training sessions.

As soon as possible.

The Accessibility team is working toward developing a centrally maintained list of vendors that have undergone review; however, all vendors must still be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Approval for one department or use case does not guarantee approval for another. In some instances, a product may be used by one or two faculty members for limited research purposes, while in other cases the same product may be integrated into coursework and directly impact students. Because risk and exposure vary by use, we cannot issue blanket approvals. While we aim to avoid unnecessary delays to research and operations, every Electronic and Information Resource (EIR) purchase must be individually evaluated for accessibility.

Our goal is to support departments in identifying more accessible alternatives when a vendor is found to have significant accessibility gaps. Ideally, as Digital Accessibility is formalized into an officially resourced Office, we will be able to provide clearer guidance, comparisons, and recommendations across commonly used tools.

Once that office is established it will provide a list of approved vendors. In the meantime, check with the digital accessibility team on the status of a vendor.

The Accessibility team is working toward developing a centrally maintained list of vendors that have undergone review; however, all vendors must still be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Approval for one department, function, or use case does not automatically extend to another. In some instances, a product may be used by one or two faculty members for limited research purposes; in others, the same product may be embedded in coursework or instructional activities and directly impact students. Because accessibility risk and institutional exposure vary based on how and where a product is used, blanket approvals are not appropriate.

While we make every effort to avoid unnecessary delays to research and operations, each Electronic and Information Resource (EIR) purchase must be individually evaluated for accessibility compliance based on its specific use, audience, and scope.

The Accessibility Executive Committee, including the CFO and Provost, will review accessibility exception requests. Those seeking such exceptions must complete an accessibility exception request form. Contact the digital accessibility team to receive a copy of this required form.

For vendors that provide web hosting platforms or tools (such as Weebly or GoDaddy), the vendor is responsible for providing a VPAT or accessibility documentation for the platform itself, since they design and control the underlying technology. TTU faculty and staff should not complete a VPAT on behalf of the vendor.

However, departments are responsible for the accessibility of the content they create and publish using those platforms. In other words, the vendor is accountable for the accessibility of the tool, while the University is accountable for how it is used. The reconciler's role is limited to ensuring the appropriate documentation is collected during procurement; they are not expected to assess or manage website content accessibility.

Accessibility compliance for publisher-provided platforms is a shared responsibility, but the legal obligation ultimately rests with the University, not the publishing company. Vendors such as Pearson and McGraw Hill are responsible for designing accessible products and providing documentation that discloses accessibility conformance and known gaps. However, because these tools are required for coursework and delivered to students through Canvas, the institution cannot fully shift responsibility to the vendor. The University must perform due diligence, understand documented limitations, and ensure that students are not denied access by providing appropriate mitigation or accommodations when gaps exist. In short, vendors are responsible for building accessible platforms, but institutions remain accountable for the accessibility of the instructional technology they choose to require.

Yes. Accessibility guidelines do apply to social media used by University departments. Social media is considered official digital content when it is used to communicate University programs, services, or activities, and it must be made accessible to the extent supported by each platform.

In practice, this means using available accessibility features such as alternative text for images, captions for videos, sufficient color contrast in graphics, and clear, readable text. While social media platforms themselves may not be fully WCAG-compliant, departments are responsible for ensuring the content they publish is accessible.

There is no single automated tool that can fully check accessibility on social media. Instead, accessibility relies on a combination of platform-built tools (like alt-text and captioning features), basic accessibility checklists, and manual review. Departments should also ensure that any content linked from social media—such as websites, PDFs, or forms—is fully accessible.