| Documentation Type | VPAT/ACR | Certification | Conformance Statement | User Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | An accounting of your digital asset’s accessibility that mirrors the accessibility. If accessibility is strong, the ACR will be relatively clean or reflect full conformance | Speaks to your digital asset’s full conformance and is issued from a provider | A construct of the W3C where issuers are bound by 5 rules of issuing a conformance statement | Genuine attestation from a user tester that your asset provides an accessible experience and is free of accessibility issues |
| Strength | Not certification but a clean ACR will have that effect | Formal certification of full conformance | Overlaps with certification but follows W3C rules | Distinct with no formalities attached but the power is there |
| Credibility Factors | Reflects actual technical standards conformance status | Provider’s reputation is extremely important – anyone can issue certification. Certification issued freely or short of WCAG conformance has no credibility | Bound by W3C’s 5 rules for issuing conformance statements | Professional from the intended protected class (people with disabilities) states unequivocally they have access |
Clients typically ask us for one of three documents:
- VPAT / ACR
- Certification
- Conformance Statement
What is much more rare is a request for user testing, but documentation of user testing is extremely compelling both for litigation defense and legal compliance, generally. Let’s compare the different types of accessibility documentation.
Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACRs) are an accounting of your digital asset’s accessibility. Think of them as a mirror of the accessibility. If the accessibility is strong, the ACR will be relatively clean or even reflect full conformance with technical standards. Although an ACR isn’t certification of accessibility, a clean ACR will have that effect.
Certification speaks to your digital asset’s full conformance and is issued from a provider. The provider’s reputation is extremely important because anyone can issue certification. And certification that is issued freely and/or short of WCAG conformance will not have any credibility in the marketplace, in the courthouse, or with regulatory authorities.
A conformance statement overlaps significantly with certification, but it is different because a conformance statement is a construct of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and any issuer’s are bound by the 5 rules of issuing a conformance statement.
User testing is distinct in that the same formalities aren’t attached, but the power is there.
When you possess genuine attestation from a user tester that your asset provides an accessible experience and/or is free of accessibility issues, that carries significant weight. After all, the objective behind any underlying law or regulation is access and if a professional from the intended protected class (people with disabilities) state unequivocally states they have have access, there’s little room for arguments unless the attestation is disingenuous.
One way we hedge that possibility (that the user testing is rubber stamped) is our user testing service comes with a screen recording of the user testing session. This provides our clients with concrete, tangible evidence that underpins and strengthens the attestation document.
Most user testing including our own is conducted by people who are blind or visually impaired and using screen reader assistive technology. It’s not that there aren’t multiple other types of disabilities implicated when accessing the digital world, it’s just that most accessibility considerations involve people who are blind or visually impaired.
This approach makes practical sense because blind users rely entirely on keyboard navigation—they can’t click on elements they can’t see—which means screen reader testing inherently validates keyboard accessibility for users with motor disabilities as well. When a blind tester navigates your site, they’re simultaneously verifying that every interactive element can be reached and activated without a mouse, that focus indicators work properly, and that the tab order is logical.
Keyboard navigability can be essential for people with motor impairments so the testing coverage practically spans into other disabilities.
These esters are also testing whether form labels are properly associated, error messages are announced, and content relationships are clear—issues that affect users with cognitive disabilities who rely on clear structure and consistent patterns.
Screen reader testing effectively functions as a multi-disability testing methodology. It catches missing alternative text, improper heading hierarchies, unlabeled buttons, inaccessible forms, keyboard traps, and focus management issues—barriers that collectively impact blind users, users with motor disabilities, and many users with cognitive disabilities.
This is why screen reader compatibility has become a cornerstone of digital accessibility testing and why it features so prominently in accessibility lawsuits. While we must still address needs specific to other disabilities — such as captions for deaf users, color contrast for low vision users who don’t use screen readers, touch target sizes for mobile users with motor impairments, and plain language for cognitive accessibility — screen reader testing by blind users provides the most comprehensive single method for identifying accessibility barriers across multiple disability categories.
When organizations need to prioritize their accessibility efforts or are working with limited testing resources, starting with thorough screen reader testing delivers the highest impact for the broadest range of users. It’s not about diminishing other disability needs, but rather recognizing that this testing methodology efficiently uncovers the majority of barriers that prevent equal access to digital content.
If you would like to schedule user testing services, we’re happy to help. You can send us a message below or contact us and we’ll reply back shortly.
