Procuring Accessible digital services in the HE Context

The presenters opened by highlighting the disconnect between the legal obligations placed on universities and the evidence often provided by software suppliers. Through a series of real-world examples, they illustrated the range of problematic responses institutions encounter when requesting accessibility information. These included suppliers charging extra fees to provide accessibility evidence, offering “accessible versions” of products at additional cost, insisting that accessibility issues are not significant because other customers have not reported them, or requiring institutions to pay development fees to correct accessibility defects. These examples demonstrated a widespread lack of maturity and consistency in how accessibility is understood and managed across the supplier market.

A key theme throughout the discussion was that accessibility should be treated as a fundamental quality and compliance requirement, on a par with cybersecurity, data protection and information governance. The speakers argued that, despite growing awareness of digital accessibility within universities, organisations are still too often required to undertake extensive accessibility testing after contracts have already been awarded. This results in institutions effectively performing quality assurance work that should have been completed by suppliers before products reached the market. Accessibility specialists are frequently brought into projects too late, limiting their ability to influence procurement decisions and increasing organisational risk.

The session drew on findings from sector-wide initiatives involving Jisc, AbilityNet, the Association for Learning Technology and higher education accessibility communities. These activities identified common challenges, including poor accessibility documentation, outdated audit evidence, insufficient testing practices and weak procurement processes. Participants emphasised that universities need a more coordinated approach that brings together procurement teams, technology experts and accessibility professionals from the outset of purchasing exercises. Accessibility should become an embedded part of procurement governance rather than an afterthought addressed during implementation.

The central focus of the session was the Accessibility Passport, a freely available framework developed through collaboration between Make Things Accessible, the RNIB and sector partners. The Accessibility Passport provides practical tools that help institutions evaluate supplier accessibility capability during procurement. These include standard procurement questions, supplier assessment criteria, maturity scoring frameworks and accessibility contract clauses. The framework encourages institutions to seek clear evidence of accessibility testing, compliance documentation, remediation plans, accessibility statements and support for assistive technology users before contracts are awarded.

Particular emphasis was placed on recognising that accessibility extends beyond public-facing websites. Staff-facing systems, administrative interfaces, generated documents, emails, reports and downloadable content must also meet accessibility requirements. Speakers challenged the misconception that compliance obligations apply only to student-facing services, stressing that accessibility legislation and equality obligations cover all users, including employees. The session also warned against relying on accessibility overlays as a substitute for genuine accessibility, arguing that products must be accessible by design rather than dependent on third-party fixes.

The session concluded with a call for collective action across the sector. Rather than producing further reports, participants were encouraged to adopt and embed the Accessibility Passport resources in procurement processes, engage procurement professionals more closely with accessibility specialists, and establish a consistent set of expectations for suppliers. The overall message was clear: accessibility should be a standard procurement requirement, not an optional enhancement. By adopting common frameworks and demanding stronger evidence from suppliers, universities can reduce risk, improve user experience and help raise accessibility standards across the wider education technology market.