The engagement at a glance
- Environment
- Student-facing learning and assessment platform
- Coverage
- Selected learning activities, questions, controls, and response fields
- Methods
- WCAG 2.2 A/AA evaluation with manual and automated testing
- Deliverables
- Accessibility audit, VPAT-based ACR, and findings review materials
The challenge: evaluate how students interact with learning content
Students need to read instructions, understand controls, enter responses, and receive feedback. Accessibility testing must consider those interactions within the learning activities being evaluated.
This engagement focused on selected student-facing learning and assessment workflows. The defined scope connected the evaluation to the activities and controls students needed to use.
How CompliCorp evaluated the selected workflows
CompliCorp combined automated checks with manual evaluation against WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA criteria. Testing included screen readers, keyboard interaction, browser zoom, and color contrast using documented desktop browser and assistive technology combinations.
The evaluation examined instructions, input fields, interactive controls, screen reader feedback, and the presentation of content when enlarged.
What the evaluation documented
Findings described barriers in the evaluated student experience, including:
- Labels and control information. Some controls and response fields lacked the names, roles, or state information needed to communicate their purpose and behavior clearly.
- Screen reader feedback. Some interactions did not provide the feedback needed to understand changes or confirm the result of an action.
- Color contrast. Visual information included contrast barriers that required attention in the interface and content.
- Enlarged content. Zoom testing identified content that became clipped or obscured, affecting access to parts of the learning experience.
What CompliCorp delivered: an audit and an ACR
The detailed audit recorded observed barriers, reproduction steps, user impact, and remediation recommendations. The Accessibility Conformance Report, prepared using the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT), documented evaluation methods, conformance ratings, and known limitations.
Together, the documents served two practical purposes: the audit gave the product team findings to investigate, while the ACR organized conformance information for accessibility reviews.
Delivery materials also addressed setting remediation goals, preparing development work, providing technical guidance, and tracking progress. The engagement gave the team a documented foundation for reviewing accessibility and planning the next stage of work.
Questions about this engagement
Which parts of the EdTech platform were evaluated?
The scope covered selected student-facing learning and assessment workflows, including instructions, questions, response fields, and interactive controls. The case study describes that evaluated scope.
Why did the engagement include both an audit and an ACR?
The audit documented individual barriers and remediation recommendations. The ACR used the VPAT format to communicate conformance ratings, evaluation methods, and known limitations. Each document presented the evaluation evidence for a different review need.
Review sample deliverables
View sample reports to explore our audit and VPAT/ACR reporting formats. Read these separate, anonymized examples directly on our website without a signup.
Services and planning resources
Explore another accessibility engagement
E-commerce Accessibility Audit: Testing the Shopping Journey
Client and identifying details have been omitted to protect confidentiality.