Web Application Accessibility Review final report

Not Applicable/Not Answered

NULL (not included in calculation)

Does Not Support

0

Partially Supports/Supports with Exceptions

1

Supports

2

Not Applicable/Not Answered

12

Does Not Support

0

Partially Supports/Supports with Exceptions

3

Supports

17

1

Web accessibility is recognized to be about continuous ongoing improvement rather than assuming a product is ever fully accessible.

While it would be ideal to reach an end-state of completely accessible web applications, there will always be areas of improvement and challenges accessibility.² That doesn’t mean that improvements cannot be made, but it should be understood that accessibility is about continuous improvement rather than reaching an end state.

2

Most web applications receive regular updates which may change their ability to meet accessibility needs.

Due to the dynamic nature of development and the web, any information on accessibility should be considered within a point of time. With any application, there could be an update that introduces changes that would impact accessibility:

• Introduction of a new module/major version release that reduces the accessibility of the product, or
• Maturation of vendor products which leads to better accessibility within the product.

3

This project has a relatively large scope of applications in scope which differ greatly from each other.

The extensive range of applications involved in this project adds significant complexity to the user experience across the products. Given the diverse array of applications and user interactions, it can be challenging to define a singular user experience in certain cases. Examples of this complexity include:

• There may be multiple different user groups within an application, all with different levels of access. It may be possible that the user experience for one user group may be more accessible than another user’s experience.
  • Please note that for this project it was assumed that the re-use of code throughout development as a best practice, we have assumed that any pattern of accessibility issues seen for one user group should be expected to be repeated for other user groups.
• Many applications are highly customizable, allow for custom forms, or otherwise allow for a user experience to be other than what is core to the application. It may be that even if the application has minimal or no accessibility issues, the added content does. The way in which the data is provided through SiteImprove automated scanning makes it difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate between the two.
• Some products offer multiple ways to access the application, such as a web application and a desktop application available for a product. This could mean that depending on the application is accessed, the user may have a different experience with the accessibility of the product (e.g., Microsoft Word is available both as a desktop application and as a web application. Depending on how it is accessed, different features are available and the difference in user experience could mean major changes to the accessibility.
• Similarly, some applications are typically used as an integration, or add-on for another application. It may be possible that the accessibility of the application differs when viewed as a standalone application rather than within the context that it is typically used (e.g., iManage Share has an Outlook add-in which offers a different user experience compared to the web application. Users of iManage typically access the application through the Outlook add-in (which may differ from the web application in accessibility).
  • Please note, that any alternative ways to access the applications have been documented in Appendix 1.
• Several applications, including Crowdmark, Performance+, and Creator+, function primarily as integrated components within the LEARN platform. These tools are most often accessed exclusively through LEARN, rather than as standalone solutions. Similar to challenges observed with custom content, SiteImprove is unable to distinguish between the base applications and their integrated instances within LEARN.

1

SiteImprove does not support automated scanning of applications with 2FA authentication.

Mitigate

Create a WatIAM account that is 2FA exempt.

By creating a 2FA-exempt WatIAM account, any application that is authenticated using Waterloo’s SSO will bypass 2FA and allow for scanning.

Some applications do not use UWaterloo’s SSO and may have their own built-in 2FA which cannot be circumvented and is therefore ineligible for scanning.

2

SiteImprove does not support automated scanning of applications that are behind a VPN, Citrix Gateway, etc.

Accept

N/A

Any application that is only available behind VPN, Citrix Gateway, or is otherwise not available to the public is ineligible for scanning.

3

SiteImprove scans the entire application and cannot differentiate between custom content for generating an accessibility score.

Accept

N/A

Some accessibility scores by SiteImprove may be artificially lower due to user-created custom content creating accessibility issues in SiteImprove.

4

SiteImprove may be able to update/delete data, and/or initiate application processes depending on how the application has been built.

Mitigate

Limit scanning to non-production environments unless there is certainty that the application will not cause issue, the application is non-business critical, and there is a backup recovery plan in place.

Adding constraints to which environments are scanned increases the number of applications that are ineligible for scanning. Many of the vendor product applications in scope allow for free individual or trial accounts which are not associated with UWaterloo’s environment. Whenever possible, this approach was taken in order to further reduce the risks caused by this limitation.

A decision tree was created (See Appendix 4) and application admins/business unit contacts were consulted to determine the appropriate path forward for scanning for each application.

5

SiteImprove’s Information Risk Assessment (IRA) had only considered public data and has not been properly vetted for any types of restricted, confidential, or otherwise non-public information.

Accept

N/A

Some contacts for applications that are used for more sensitive data requested not to have their application scanned due to privacy concerns.

However, due to limitation #4, many non-production environments were scanned thereby reducing the risk of any exposed data.

6

Some applications block IP addresses, preventing SiteImprove from completing an automated scan.

Mitigate (where possible)

Where possible, a temporary IP exception was put in place to allow for scanning.

Some vendor products were ineligible for scanning due to the IP blocking.

7

In some instances, other unknown technical issues prevented SiteImprove from completing a scan. For example, Microsoft credentials that otherwise worked would not resolve to complete the automated crawl.

Accept

N/A

Many Microsoft web applications would time out and not authenticate during SiteImprove’s automated crawl.

8

SiteImprove can’t differentiate between high-level and low-level content with apps integrated into other apps.

Accept

N/A

Turnitin, Creator+, and Performance+ are typically only accessible through LEARN and it was not possible to generate a unique score for each application. However, a LEARN test environment was scanned before and after these modules were enabled and issue’s list compared. Any newly reported issues have been included in the analysis.

9

Automated accessibility scanning does not capture all accessibility issues.

Accept

N/A

Due to lack of resources for comprehensive testing, we must accept that SiteImprove will not be fully accurate. However, it should be expected that SiteImprove would be similarly inaccurate to all products scanned.

1

Subjectivity in evaluation methods

Accept

N/A

While VPATs are intended to provide a standardized format for reporting accessibility, the evaluation methods used can vary significantly between vendors. The quality of the VPAT is heavily dependent on the expertise of the individual completing it. Some vendors may employ accessibility experts who use robust testing methods, while others might rely on less experienced staff, leading to inconsistencies in the accuracy and thoroughness of the report.

2

Voluntary nature and Accountability

Accept

N/A

The VPAT is a voluntary document, meaning there is no mandatory enforcement of its accuracy. This voluntary nature can lead to discrepancies between reported accessibility and the actual user experience.

3

Potential for Outdated Information

Accept

N/A

Another limitation is the potential for the VPAT to contain outdated information. Accessibility standards and best practices evolve over time, and a VPAT that was accurate at the time of its creation may no longer reflect the current state of the product's accessibility.

A

4

11

0

0

B

1

6

7

2

C

5

13

11

10

D

24

28

16

7

A

8

1

0

0

6

B

2

3

2

1

8

C

4

2

2

4

27

D

6

4

4

3

58

• Quest
• Waterloo Works
• KeyData

• Gitlab
• Jaggaer
• Confluence Cloud
• Jira Software Cloud
• Jira Service Management Cloud

• N/A – No applications fit these criteria

• FARECOMM

• Workday

• N/A – No applications fit these criteria

• N/A – No applications fit these criteria

• Zoom

WCAG A

113

1.81

WCAG AA

111

1.75

WCAG AAA

14

1.68

Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text.

Users may struggle to understand and navigate content, face issues with screen readers, and misinterpret information due to missing structural cues.

All functionality of the content is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints.

Significant impact for users who rely on keyboard navigation. Users with disabilities may face challenges accessing and interacting with web content, as they might be unable to perform essential functions without a mouse. This can hinder their ability to use the web application effectively.

For all user interface components (including but not limited to: form elements, links and components generated by scripts), the name and role can be programmatically determined; states, properties, and values that can be set by the user can be programmatically set; and notification of changes to these items is available to user agents, including assistive technologies.

May significantly impact users who rely on assistive technologies. Without programmatically determinable names, roles, and values for user interface components, these technologies may struggle to convey essential information, hindering users' ability to interact with and understand web content effectively.

Content can be presented without loss of information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in two dimensions […] Except for parts of the content which require two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning.

This may have an impact for users with low vision. If content does not reflow properly when zoomed up to 400%, users may struggle to read and navigate without excessive scrolling in multiple directions. This can lead to a frustrating experience and hinder their ability to access information effectively.

Any keyboard operable user interface has a mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator is visible.

This may impact keyboard users, such as those with motor or visual impairments, as they may not be able to determine where they are on the page. This makes navigation difficult or impossible, reducing accessibility and potentially excluding users from key functionality.

All functionality that uses a dragging movement for operation can be achieved by a single pointer without dragging, unless dragging is essential or the functionality is determined by the user agent and not modified by the author.

This can significantly impact users with motor impairments. If a web application relies solely on dragging movements for functionality, users who cannot perform precise dragging may struggle to interact with the content.

49

253

49

82

49

130

All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose, except for the situations listed below.

Users who rely on screen readers or cannot perceive visual content—such as blind or low-vision users—may miss important information conveyed through images, icons, or other non-text elements. This creates barriers to understanding and using the application effectively.

Same as noted above in VPAT findings.

Same as noted above in VPAT findings.

Same as noted above in VPAT findings.

Same as noted above in VPAT findings.

The visual presentation of text and images of text has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, with some exceptions.

Users with low vision or colour blindness may struggle to read text due to insufficient contrast with the background. This can make content difficult or impossible to perceive, reducing readability and accessibility.

Except for captions and images of text, text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent without loss of content or functionality.

Users with low vision or other visual impairments may be unable to enlarge text without loss of content or functionality. This can make reading difficult and hinder access to important information.

The size of the target for pointer inputs is at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels, with some exceptions.

Interactive elements like buttons or links may be too small or too close together. This can make it difficult for users with limited dexterity, mobility impairments, or those using touchscreens to accurately tap or click, leading to frustration and errors.

1

Discovery of accessibility enhancement widgets

We identified third-party accessibility widgets, such as UserWay,that can be embedded into web applications with minimal development effort. These tools improve digital accessibility through features like contrast controls and screen reader support. TixHub currently uses UserWay, which offers the ability to serve as an example of functionality and impact.

However, it is important to note that the use of widget overlays for accessibility is controversial, may not work, and could even open Waterloo up to legal consequences.

2

There is a need to involve individuals with accessibility needs as part of these reviews without overburdening them.

Engaging individuals with accessibility needs is essential for meaningful accessibility evaluations in order to align with the principle of “nothing about us without us.” Their involvement helps shape more inclusive outcomes. However, this input should be solicited in a way that empowers rather than overburdens, recognizing that the responsibility for inclusive design lies with the organization, not the individuals affected.

3

Many of the web applications in scope offer accessibility settings and user guides.

Many applications provide accessibility features and guidance tailored to different user roles. This includes individualized settings for end users, administrative controls for organization-wide changes, and tools or documentation to support accessible content creation. Examples include platforms like LEARN, Power BI, and Decisions.

4

Vendor openness to accessibility feedback

Several vendors actively solicit and incorporate accessibility-related feedback, signalling a commitment to inclusive design and continuous improvement. This transparency helps identify partners who prioritize accessibility and creates opportunities to collaboratively influence future enhancements.

5

Retiring applications

Some applications that were originally identified as in scope have since been retired or are scheduled for decommissioning. While it’s possible that these tools may still exist in other areas of campus, they were given lower priority in our data collection due to their phase-out status. Here is the complete list of applications noted to be retired or retiring:

• Bonfire
• Xakia

• Brightflag
• Hangry Mobile
• RMS Mercury
• IMLeagues
• Ontario Work Study Program
• iCIMS
• Unit 4

Please note that all of these applications have been included in the final report for informational purposes but may not have all the information collected.

This highlights an opportunity to explore more consistent ways of tracking campus-wide applications, which could help streamline future initiatives.

6

Institutional interest in SiteImprove for digital accessibility for web applications

There is an interest across campus in scanning web applications accessibility using SiteImprove. Through consultations for this project, there were many groups across campus who expressed interest upon learning that SiteImprove can support credentialed web applications.

7.

SiteImprove’s manual scan browser extension

In addition to automated scanning, SiteImprove also offers a browser extension which provides an issues list on accessibility on a page-by-page basis. While this would be helpful as a dev tool for the purpose of this project, it was determined not to provide enough data and therefore was not used in this project.

8.

Microsoft’s robust Disability Answer Desk Network

Microsoft offers a comprehensive Disability Answer Desk to all customers. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/accessibility/disability-answer-desk

Microsoft's Disability Answer Desk (DAD) offers a wide range of accessibility resources and support services for individuals with disabilities. Here is a breakdown of what they provide:

• General Support Services such as product support and assistive technology guidance,
• Tools and resources such as accessibility checkers, adaptive accessories,
• Training and learning which includes both prerecorded lessons and on-demand workshops,
• Enterprise support which includes support for accessibility compliance, compliance documentation such as conformance reports.

This has been highlighted as a separate finding due to how ingrained Microsoft is in the digital environment at Waterloo and how comprehensive this resource is to all Microsoft users.

High

Anticipated to deliver immediate and meaningful benefits to application users. These recommendations should be prioritized where possible, depending on the overall strategic direction of the institution. The implementation of these recommendations may still depend on available resources and competing priorities.

Medium

Expected to offer valuable improvements, though with potentially less urgency or impact than high-priority items. Recommend assessing alignment with institutional goals and current resource availability before proceeding.

Low

May contribute to long-term accessibility and user experience goals, though benefits are less certain or immediate. Suggest revisiting within the broader context of institutional planning and resource allocation, especially when capacity allows.

High

1

Accessibility best practices embedded from the beginning for any UWaterloo custom developed software.

Accessibility is best when considered from the off-start and not an afterthought. It is easier to develop with accessibility in mind than to try and retrofit after the fact. This will allow for more accessible custom developed software ongoing.

N/A – This is a general guiding principal that should inform any future software development.

High

2

Any IST accessibility-related project should take pre-project steps to connect with larger UWaterloo community of accessibility.

This will provide understanding of where proposed project fits into larger campus accessibility framework to ensure constructive collaboration and no redundancy across efforts.

Additionally, due to it relying on multi-departmental collaboration, working in this manner may be helpful to create guiding principles of collaboration and help model greater efficiency across campus.

N/A – This is a general guiding principal that should inform any future accessibility-related IST work.

Med.

3

IST accessibility review work should involve both product SME and accessibility expert.

Conducting an in-depth accessibility analysis requires the combined expertise of both product specialists—who understand how the application is used within the University of Waterloo context—and accessibility experts—who can evaluate compliance with standards and identify barriers. This dual perspective ensures that assessments are both technically accurate and contextually relevant, leading to more actionable and meaningful recommendations.

N/A – This is a general guiding principal that should inform any future accessibility-related IST work.

Low

4

Future initiatives should focus on a more targeted subset of applications to enable deeper analysis, more efficient resource allocation, and higher-impact accessibility improvements.

Focusing future initiatives on a smaller set of applications offers several strategic advantages. A reduced scope is easier to manage, allows for a more tailored approach to each application, and enables deeper investment of time and resources. It also facilitates the inclusion of key accessibility stakeholders and subject matter experts, enhancing the quality and relevance of the work. This approach addresses a known limitation of the current phase and would bring greater clarity, focus, and impact to future accessibility efforts.

N/A – This is a general guiding principal that should inform any future accessibility-related IST work.

High

5

Establish a clear institutional position on the acceptable level of accessibility for software used at the University of Waterloo. The framework should address both existing applications and future software procurements, ensuring consistent evaluation and decision-making aligned with UWaterloo’s accessibility goals.

Please note that identifying roles and responsibilities for new operations will be critical to the success of this work.

Defining UWaterloo’s tolerance for inaccessible software will bring greater clarity to procurement and evaluation processes, ensuring consistent expectations across the institution. This clarity supports the advancement of EDI-R initiatives by promoting more inclusive digital experiences for all users. Additionally, establishing these standards now will better position the university to adapt to upcoming changes in AODA compliance requirements.  Additionally, this work aims to address gaps in the current digital accessibility procurement process, where there is a strong desire to ensure an accessible user experience, but no established guidelines or designated authority to make final decisions.

N/A – This is a general guiding principal that should inform procurement policies

High

6

Implement a feedback mechanism that enables users to report accessibility issues across a wide range of applications and platforms. Recognizing that different applications may require different reporting methods based on user groups and technical constraints, feedback options should be embedded directly within applications where feasible and supported by a centralized reporting channel. This system should include a defined process for collecting, triaging, and responding to feedback appropriately. It is recommended that this approach be applied broadly across all applications, not limited to those within the current project scope.

Establishing a user feedback mechanism allows the university to proactively identify real-world accessibility challenges without placing an undue burden on individuals with disabilities by collecting user accessibility feedback as accessibility issues are experienced by regular use. It enables continuous improvement by capturing authentic user experiences that automated tools may overlook. This approach also supports ongoing advocacy for accessibility enhancements and aligns with AODA requirements by demonstrating a commitment to responsive and inclusive digital environments.

N/A—this recommendation is intended to apply broadly across all University of Waterloo applications, including those beyond the scope of the current initiative. As such, it has not been attributed to any specific application.

Med.

7

Estimate the effort required to improve the accessibility of Waterloo custom-developed and open-source applications. This can be informed by the current scan results, and further enhanced by having developers engage with real-time findings from manual scanning with SiteImprove.

This initiative will provide greater clarity into the current accessibility posture of Waterloo’s custom-developed applications and the scope of remediation required. It also offers an opportunity to evaluate applications that were excluded from the automated scan, thereby generating a more comprehensive understanding of accessibility challenges and associated remediation efforts.

• AI Chatbot*
• Campus Housing Budget Tool
• Campus Incident System
• Campus Maps*
• FARECOMM
• Policy 73
• Portal
• UW Scholar
• Netmon/ONA
• WIL Casual Payroll*
• Ontario Work Study
• IST Webstore*
• LEARN Tools*
• Campus Directory
• Namespace Inventory
• SuiteCRM
• doorsmanager
• fibredb
• myaccess
• Team Mass Import
• WhoAmI
• Wifi mac auth registration

* These are the applications that were able to be automatically scanned by SiteImprove. See Appendix 7 for SiteImprove Issue report exports. All other applications would either need to rely on manual scans only for remediation or address technical issues preventing automated scans.

Low

8

Develop Waterloo-specific content creation guidelines that promote accessibility best practices. These guidelines should support users in generating accessible content across relevant applications, particularly where vendor-supplied documentation is limited or unavailable.

Establishing a unified set of accessibility-focused content guidelines will help reinforce best practices, ensure consistency across platforms, and minimize confusion caused by conflicting or incomplete resources. This initiative will complement existing materials while providing authoritative direction in areas lacking vendor guidance.

• Decisions*
• LEARN
• Qualtrics*
• WCMS*
• SimplyVoting
• Tableau*
• SuiteCRM
• UW Scholar
• Ceros*
• Shopify*
• Confluence
• Microsoft PowerBI*
• Microsoft Word*
• Microsoft Excel*
• Microsoft PowerPoint*
  Microsoft Power Platform*

*These are applications that have a vendor provided accessibility user guide Waterloo created one can build off these principals but ensure information is specific and relevant to Waterloo’s use. Also, avoid any confusion with contradicting recommendations from 3^rd party sources.

9

Conduct a feasibility assessment of implementing an accessibility overlay widget solution, such as UserWay. The goal would be to determine their effectiveness in addressing application-specific accessibility issues within the Waterloo digital ecosystem. This evaluation should involve collaboration with Legal and Immigration Services (LIS) and Information Systems & Services (ISS) to ensure technical compatibility and legal compliance.

Implementing an accessibility widget overlay may provide Waterloo with greater autonomy in remediating accessibility barriers, reducing reliance on third-party vendors for timely fixes. This approach could enhance flexibility in addressing user needs and improve the overall accessibility experience for our diverse user base. However, due to the controversial nature of these widgets, Waterloo should be cautious about how it proceeds, ensuring that this solution would not open the institution to legal issues.

N/A – would be dependent on the feasibility of the widget to remediate accessibility issues.

High

10

Evaluate the feasibility of expanding the use of SiteImprove to enable accessibility scanning of credentialed web applications across the University of Waterloo. This includes establishing a formal process for campus stakeholders to submit applications to be scanned by SiteImprove. An updated Information Risk Assessment (IRA) will be required to assess the handling of data with varying data classifications.

Throughout this initiative, it became clear that there’s strong interest across campus in using tools like SiteImprove to scan and improve accessibility. Making it easier for teams to submit their sites and keep them actively monitored would support those efforts and help build a stronger, more consistent accessibility presence across the university.

N/A – This is an initiative to support other accessibility initiatives across campus

High

11

Initiate accessibility scans of LEARN course content to identify and address potential barriers for students.

Ensuring that all course materials in LEARN are accessible helps create a more equitable learning experience for every student, regardless of ability. This supports inclusive education and aligns with the university’s commitment to accessibility.

• LEARN

Med.

12

Initiate accessibility scans of Confluence content to identify and address potential barriers for students.

Ensures all users can access and benefit from Confluence content without barriers, supporting a more inclusive digital environment.

• Confluence

Med.

13

Initiate accessibility scans on published Decisions content across campus-developed solutions.

Ensures a consistent, accessible experience for all users interacting with Decisions-based tools and services.

• Decisions

Low

14

Initiate accessibility scans on published Power BI and Tableau reports.

Ensuring these reports are accessible helps create an inclusive experience for all users, including those using assistive technologies, and supports equitable access to important institutional insights.

• PowerBI
• Tableau

Low

15

Project to evaluate the accessibility of IST-supported vendor applications that were not scanned due to privacy or technical limitations of SiteImprove. If automated scanning cannot be completed, then it may be possible to use SiteImprove’s browser extension to pull relevant data. Please note that this recommendation only includes vendor-procured products as recommendation #7 recommends scanning and remediating custom-built applications with higher expected benefits.

Some applications were not scanned due to privacy or technical constraints, which limits visibility into their accessibility status. While it is important to continue to build awareness of the digital accessibility landscape, creating clear channels for users to report and resolve accessibility issues has a more immediate impact on user experience than benchmark scores. Until a broader institutional policy on accessible software is established (see Recommendation 5), the value of this work remains very limited and therefore any work in this category should only be considered if there is assured to be added institutional value.

• iManage Work
• iManage Share
• iCIMS
• InfoEd
• Minuet
• Central Stores Shipping System
• Quest
• Waterloo Works
• Advocate
• Parklane
• Qnomy Q-Flow
• AccessAbility Online
• Accuro
• Bambora
• Xakia
• Brightflag
• Bonfire
• D3 Police Information System
• DV Sports
• ESQ Camp Brain Registration
• IM Leagues
• Anvil Group
• Microsoft PowerBI
• Shopify
• Tableau
• Audience View
• Conversa
• Hangry Mobile App
• RFAM
• Jane
• Univerus
• RMS Mercury
• SideArm
• TeamBuildr
• TouchNet
• Zoho
• Gitlab
• SAP
• Ceros
• Markup
• Crowdmark
• LinkedIn Learning
• Overleaf
• iClicker
• Performance+
• Creator+
• Bongo
• Turnitin
• Sailpoint IIQ for Identity Management
• Cisco DNA Centre 
• Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller
• Efficient IP – DDI
• Exchange
• Intune
• LAPS
• Microsoft Office Products
• Teams
• MS SQL
• Active Directory
• Papercut
• Secret Server
• SendIt
• Sharepoint
• VMWare

High

16

Publish and promote both vendor-provided and Waterloo-created content accessibility guides to all site users, including end users, content creators, and administrators. Ensure these resources are shared with both new and existing staff.

Given the institution’s expansive use of Microsoft and the comprehensiveness of the offering, Microsoft’s Disability Answer Desk should be promoted to all end-users of Microsoft products as well.

Providing comprehensive accessibility resources equips application maintainers and content creators with the necessary knowledge to develop accessible digital content. This also empowers end users to effectively engage with the application, fostering a more inclusive digital environment.

• AIM*
• Decisions*
• WCMS
• LEARN
• SimplyVoting
• Microsoft PowerBI*
• Tableau*
• SuiteCRM
• UW Scholar
• Ceros*
• Shopify*
• Confluence
• Microsoft Word*
• Microsoft Excel*
• Microsoft PowerPoint*
  Microsoft Power Platform*
• iManage Work*
• iCIMS*
• Quest*
• Parklane*
• Slate*
• Accuro*
• WC Online*
• Jane*
• Zoho*
• Gitlab*
• Latex*
• Piazza*
• Perusall*
• Pebblepad*
• Qualtrics*
• LinkedIn Learning

*These currently have vendor-developed accessibility-focused content creation/user guides.

High

17

Work with system administrators to enable accessibility settings within administrative interfaces where such options are available.

Ensuring that all current web applications are configured with accessibility in mind promotes a more inclusive user experience. Enabling these settings helps maintain compliance with accessibility standards and supports equitable access for all users.

• Bambora
• Archibus
• SideArm
• Ceros
• Office 365
• PebblePad

Med.

18

Verify that applications marked as pending retirement are fully decommissioned as planned.

Please note: this work should be done before any further action is taken on the applications listed to avoid investing resources of applications soon to be decommissioned.

Following through on application retirement plans ensures that outdated systems are removed from the digital environment. This allows teams to focus on maintaining and promoting accessibility for other applications, while also improving overall awareness and management of the digital application landscape.

Depending on the timing of this action, it may also provide an opportunity to verify that replacement product(s) meet institutional standards for accessibility.

• Bonfire
• Xakia
• Brightflag
• Hangry Mobile
• RMS Mercury
• IMLeagues
• Ontario Work Study Program
• iCIMS
• Unit 4
• UW Scholar
• Policy 73

Med.

19

Publish this work within IST EDI-R community for transparency.

Sharing this work fosters awareness and encourages engagement across the community regarding digital accessibility initiatives. It also supports a culture of openness and collaboration in advancing inclusive digital practices.

N/A – This is a general recommendation for transparency around this work.

Med.

20

Distribute the SiteImprove accessibility issues list to relevant vendors, prioritizing those who actively promote openness to feedback. This work should include a review of current vendor relationships to ensure the request aligns with existing contractual and strategic relationships.

Sharing accessibility issue data with vendors may encourage them to address and resolve identified problems, leading to improved accessibility across their platforms. This collaborative approach supports a more inclusive digital environment at Waterloo.

• Anthology*
• Decisions*
• Emplifi*
• Function Point
• GoSignMeUp
• InfoSilem
• Fusion*
• Archibus
• Kuali Research
• WCMS
• SimplyVoting
• ConsignO Cloud
• Slate
• Workday
• AIMS*
• EventWorx
• TixHub
• Unit 4
• WC Online
• Biolucida
• Creatio
• RSS Chemical Management
• Kuali Academic Calendar
• Emergency Notification System
• Akindi
• Confluence Cloud*
• Jira Service Management*
• Jira*
• Qualtrics*
• Asset Bank*
• Bongo*
• LEARN*
• PebblePad*
• PeerScholar
• Piazza*
• Vevox*
• Perusall
• Zoom
• Microsoft Azure*
• Jaggaer (WatProcure)
• Waterloo Passport
• Social Intents
• Mobius

*Vendors who expressed an openness to receiving accessibility feedback.

Prismatic has been omitted from this recommendation as SiteImprove scan results have already been shared with them.

Low

21

Establish and maintain regular contact with vendors to stay informed about updates to their Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs), accessibility improvements, and the release of new modules or features that may impact accessibility.

Staying up to date with evolving accessibility features ensures that the University remains informed about the capabilities and limitations of vendor products. This proactive engagement also strengthens vendor relationships and supports continuous improvement in digital accessibility.

N/A - this recommendation is intended to apply to all vendor-procured products. As such, it has not been attributed to any specific application.

Low

22

Where alternate access methods exist (e.g., web application vs. desktop application), actively promote all available options to users.

Providing users with multiple access points ensures flexibility in meeting diverse accessibility needs. Since each platform may present unique accessibility challenges, offering alternatives increases the likelihood that users can find a method that works best for them, even if no single solution is universally optimal.

• ConsignO offers a desktop option.
• Anvil offers a mobile app.
• Nearly all Microsoft products include a desktop and browser version of their applications at a minimum, with many additionally offering mobile applications.
• iManage work has an Outlook integrated Add-on, and iManage work desktop.
• Biolucida has a desktop viewer.
• Teambuildr has a mobile app.
• Regroup (ENS) has desktop and mobile app versions.
• Zoom has a desktop app.

Anne Paulson

Manager, Departmental Systems IST

Sponsor

Traci Dow

Information Systems Specialist, Departmental Systems

Project Manager & Business Analyst

Annie Au

Information Systems Specialist, Departmental Systems

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Chijioke Momegha

Information Systems Specialist, Departmental Systems

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Dawn MacDonald

Information Systems Specialist, Departmental Systems

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Funmi Onikan

Information Systems Specialist, Departmental Systems

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Lyndi Littel

Information Systems Specialist, Departmental Systems

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Melissa Blewitt

Information Systems Specialist, Departmental Systems

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Bob Wallwork

Information Systems Specialist, Departmental Systems

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Tammy Marcinko

Information Systems Specialist, Departmental Systems

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Anton Romantsov

Information Systems Specialist, System Development and Operations

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Dana Mohapl

Information Systems Specialist, System Development and Operations

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Heather Kemp

Information Systems Specialist, System Development and Operations

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Joe Radman

Information Systems Specialist, System Development and Operations

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Shah Chandon

Information Systems Specialist, System Development and Operations

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Susan Conyard

Information Systems Specialist, System Development and Operations

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Pavol Chvala

Manager, Systems Development and Artificial Intelligence Technologies

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Jonathan Woodcock

Manager, Enterprise Systems

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Pat Coutsos

Information Systems Specialist, Student Information Systems

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Joe Kwan

Manager, Web Development

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Taysseer El Samman Kaakaji

Information Systems Specialist, Student Information Systems

IST Application Contact, Consulted

John Rogerson

Information Systems Specialist, Student Information Systems

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Matthew Verlis

Manager, Technology Integrated Services

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Sean Warren

Information Systems Specialist, Instructional Technologies and Media Services

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Dave Hinton

Manager, Technology Integrated Services

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Scott Anderson

Manager, Education Technologies

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Marcel David

Manager, Presentation and Media Production Technologies

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Steven Bourque

Director, Technology Integrated Services

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Jason Testart

Director, Information Security Services

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Sean Mason

Information Systems Specialist, Information Security Services

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Igor Biki

Information Systems Specialist, Information Systems

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Theepiga Sritharan

Manager, Client Services

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Lisa Tomalty

Manager, Client Services

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Chao Yang

Computing Consultant, Client Services

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Jamie Shigeishi

Computing Consultant, Client Services

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Pam Fluttert

Director, Instructional Technologies and Media Services

IST Application Contact, Consulted

Janelle Rainville

Director, Production and Theatre Operations

Application Business Area Contact, Consulted

Melissa Zanke

Front of House Manager, Faculty of Arts

Application Business Area Contact, Consulted

Jane Arnem

Mng, Business & Financial Oper, Athletics and Recreation Services

Application Business Area Contact, Consulted

Stacey Mahoney

Director, Systems, Technology, and Analytics, Office of the Registrar

Application Business Area Contact, Consulted

Danielle Jeanneault

Editor,U/G Calendar & Mng Comm, Office of the Registrar

Application Business Area Contact, Consulted

Ari Grossman

Associate Director, Business Operations, Athletics and Recreation Services

Application Business Area Contact, Consulted

Bethany McCollum

Software Application Technology Specialist, Advancement

Application Business Area Contact, Consulted