Accessible Procurement Should Test Real Use, Not Just Collect Conformance Claims

Oct 6

5 min read

BlindSpot Insights Accessibility and Universal Design branded article cover.

Accessible procurement is often treated as a question for the tender document: add a clause, request a conformance statement and move on with the reassuring feeling that the box has been attended to. The problem is that people do not use conformance statements. They use websites, apps, documents, kiosks and workplace systems, usually while trying to complete an actual task rather than admire the procurement file.

That distinction matters because a product can make strong accessibility claims and still create serious barriers in practice. A keyboard user may be able to reach every control but not understand where focus has gone. A screen reader may announce every field while offering little clue about the error that prevents submission. A magnified interface may technically resize while quietly placing the important button somewhere beyond the known universe.

Good accessible procurement therefore tests more than what a supplier says. It examines how the product behaves, how evidence was produced, how disabled people experience important tasks and what happens when shortcomings are found. This is not an extra layer of purchasing ceremony. It is part of choosing technology that people can actually use.

Why Accessible Procurement Starts Before the Shortlist

Accessibility is easiest to influence while requirements, evaluation criteria and budgets are still being shaped. Once a preferred product has gathered executive enthusiasm, implementation momentum and a slide deck featuring several confident arrows, raising a fundamental access problem becomes considerably more difficult.

The Australian Human Rights Commission recommends including accessibility requirements in all procurements and renewals, treating them as a core consideration alongside privacy, security and other quality expectations. That means identifying the tasks the product must support, the standards that apply and the evidence suppliers must provide before the market is approached. It also means giving accessibility enough evaluation weight to affect the outcome, rather than placing it in a section everyone politely completes and nobody scores.

Conformance Claims Are Evidence, Not the Finish Line

A conformance report can be useful. It gives buyers a structured view of how a product claims to meet a standard and can expose areas where support is partial or absent. It is not, however, a certificate of effortless use. The quality of the report depends on the scope, method, version tested and honesty of the assessment. A document marked mostly supports may conceal a great deal of work inside that small and optimistic word.

Procurement teams should ask who performed the assessment, when it was completed, which product version and user journeys were tested, what assistive technologies and browsers were included, and whether identified failures have been independently verified. They should also ask for evidence behind the answers. The spreadsheet being satisfied is useful information about the spreadsheet. It is not the same as a person completing a task.

Accessibility Testing Should Reflect Real Tasks

Accessibility testing should combine standards-based evaluation with realistic task testing. Automated tools can identify some common failures quickly, while expert manual testing can examine keyboard operation, focus management, structure, names, instructions, errors and compatibility with assistive technology. Each contributes evidence, but none is a complete substitute for the others.

Real tasks provide the context that isolated checks can miss. Can an employee request leave, a customer change a booking, or a citizen submit an application without losing information or needing an undocumented workaround? W3C guidance recommends involving users with disabilities alongside conformance evaluation because their experience reveals practical barriers and usability issues that technical inspection alone may not show. The goal is not to ask one person to represent every disability. It is to test priority journeys with a thoughtful range of users and access needs.

Build Accessibility Into Demonstrations and Trials

Supplier demonstrations tend to follow the smoothest route through a product, often guided by someone who knows exactly where every control is hiding. This is understandable. Few organisations begin a sales demonstration with the feature most likely to cause a difficult silence. Buyers can improve the evidence by specifying the tasks they want demonstrated and including accessibility scenarios in the script.

Ask suppliers to complete key journeys using only a keyboard, with screen magnification and with a screen reader. Review document outputs, notifications, error states and administrative interfaces, not only the customer-facing screen. If a trial environment is available, allow accessibility specialists and representative users enough time to explore it independently. A controlled demonstration shows what the product can do on its best behaviour. A trial begins to show what it is like to live with.

Put Remediation, Evidence and Accountability Into the Contract

No complex product is guaranteed to be flawless, so procurement should distinguish between manageable issues and barriers that make essential tasks unavailable. Suppliers should provide a clear remediation plan for known gaps, including priorities, owners and dates. A roadmap can be meaningful. It can also be a professionally formatted invitation for the buyer to remain hopeful. The difference is whether the commitment is specific, measurable and contractual.

Contracts can require ongoing conformance evidence, notice of accessibility impacts before major releases, agreed timeframes for fixing critical barriers and cooperation with independent testing. They should also clarify who pays for remediation and what happens if agreed outcomes are not met. If accessibility matters only until the contract is signed, it has been treated as a sales question rather than a service obligation.

Accessible Procurement Continues After Purchase

Accessibility can change as products are configured, integrated and updated. A platform that tested reasonably well in its standard form may acquire inaccessible templates, custom fields or authentication steps during implementation. Later releases can solve old problems and introduce new ones, sometimes with the cheerful efficiency of a renovation that fixes the kitchen and blocks the front door.

Acceptance testing should therefore occur before launch, with repeat testing for significant changes and a clear process for responding to reported barriers. Include disabled employees or customers in governance where appropriate, track accessibility issues alongside other service risks and monitor whether workarounds are becoming permanent. The purchase decision is a starting point. Sustained access depends on how the product is implemented and managed.

A Practical Accessible Procurement Checklist

Define priority journeys. Identify the tasks people must be able to complete and the range of access needs those journeys must support.
Set clear requirements. Reference relevant standards, functional performance needs and evidence expectations in the procurement documentation.
Examine the evidence. Review the scope, age, independence and limitations of conformance reports rather than accepting the headline result.
Test before commitment. Combine automated checks, expert manual evaluation and representative user testing in demonstrations, trials and acceptance.
Contract for improvement. Record known gaps, remediation dates, release obligations and consequences when critical barriers remain.
Keep checking. Retest significant changes and make accessibility part of product governance, support and renewal decisions.

Better Buying Creates Better Access

Accessible procurement is not about expecting procurement teams to become accessibility engineers overnight. It is about asking better questions, bringing the right expertise into the decision and refusing to confuse a supplier claim with a user outcome. Standards create a common baseline. Evidence, testing and lived experience show whether that baseline survives contact with the real world.

Organisations that do this well reduce remediation costs, avoid locking barriers into long contracts and choose products that work for more people from the beginning. They also send a useful signal to the market: accessibility is not decorative language for the tender response. It is part of whether the product is fit for purpose. That is a rather ordinary expectation, which is precisely why it should not require an extraordinary campaign each time.