← VPAT / Accessibility Conformance Report Generator
This generator vs. filling out the VPAT template by hand
The official Word or Excel VPAT template already has the right table shape. It has no way to check the 50 rows you type into it — which is where a completeness gap a reviewer rejects the report over actually comes from.
What filling out the template by hand involves
ITI publishes the VPAT 2.5 template as a Word or Excel document. Using it means downloading it, then typing a conformance level (Supports, Partially Supports, Does Not Support, Not Applicable, or Not Evaluated) and a Remarks cell for each of the 50 WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA success criteria, grouped under the standard's four principles, plus a handful of header fields — product name, version, report date, vendor contact, and evaluation methods used.
The template gets the shape right by construction: the rows, the criterion IDs, and the column headers are already there. What it cannot do is notice anything about what you type into it. A blank Remarks cell next to “Partially Supports” is, to the template, indistinguishable from a filled one — both are just a cell in a table.
| What you're trying to get right | Typing into the official template | This generator |
|---|---|---|
| All 50 WCAG 2.1 A/AA criterion IDs and names are present and spelled correctly. | Copied or typed by hand from the standard; a transposed digit or a re-copied row from a prior ACR is easy to miss across 50 rows. | Pre-populated from the standard's own criterion list. You never type an ID or a name. |
| Every Partially Supports or Does Not Support row explains why in Remarks. | No prompt or check. A blank Remarks cell types in exactly like a filled one. | Flagged automatically: any row at either level with an empty Remarks field is listed as a completeness issue before you're done. |
| The required header fields — product name, report date, evaluation methods used — are actually filled in. | Easy to leave one blank while focused on the 50-row table, with nothing calling it out. | Checked the same way as the row-level issues, in the same pass. |
| Seeing how many issues remain before you submit, not after a reviewer sends it back. | Requires a manual second read-through of the whole document to catch what typing it once didn't. | A running list of every remaining issue, updated as you fill in the form. |
| Starting the next product's ACR from a clean, correctly-shaped document instead of last time's edited copy. | Many vendors duplicate a previous VPAT and edit it, which can carry over a stale row untouched. | One fill-in, a fresh, correctly-shaped document every time. |
Typing directly into the official template is not wrong — it is the same document shape either way, and every conformance level and remark still comes from your own testing. What the template does not do is check what you typed, which is the specific gap this generator closes.
This tool needs no account and no sign-in: it is a static page, formatting runs in your browser, and nothing you type is uploaded anywhere.
Five gaps in one worked example
Score 50 criteria as 42 Supports, 5 Partially Supports, 2 Does Not Support, and 1 Not Applicable — a plausible result for a mostly conformant product with a few known gaps. Write Remarks on two of the five Partially Supports rows and one of the two Does Not Support rows, and leave the rest blank, the way a long form gets filled in under a deadline. Leave the Report Date header field blank too.
Typed straight into the official template, that document looks finished: every row has a level, the table is the right shape, and nothing marks it incomplete. This generator, given the same answers, lists 5 completeness issues — the three unexplained Partially Supports rows, the one unexplained Does Not Support row, and the blank Report Date — before you export anything.
Common questions
Isn't the official VPAT template just a form I fill in?
Yes, and for the format alone that's enough: the ITI-published Word or Excel template already has the right table shape. What it does not do is check your own answers as you type them. Across 50 WCAG 2.1 A/AA rows, a Partially Supports or Does Not Support entry with no Remarks, or a blank header field like Evaluation Methods Used, types in without any warning -- the template accepts an incomplete row exactly as readily as a complete one.
How often does a hand-typed VPAT end up with a row like that?
Easily. In a worked example with 50 criteria scored 42 Supports, 5 Partially Supports, 2 Does Not Support, and 1 Not Applicable, three of the five Partially Supports rows and one of the two Does Not Support rows were typed with no Remarks, and the Report Date header field was left blank -- five completeness gaps in one document, none of which the template itself flagged, because a blank cell and a cell with one word both look like "done" while typing.
Why does an unexplained Partially Supports row matter so much?
Because WebAIM's own published procurement guidance names it as the specific pattern reviewers distrust: a partial or non-conforming criterion with no explanation reads as untested or hidden rather than honestly assessed, and it is the detail a reviewer checks first. A hand-typed document has no mechanism to catch its own gap before submission -- only a second, careful read-through does, and that read-through is exactly the step a deadline tends to compress.
Does this generator decide the conformance levels for me instead?
No. Every level and every remark still comes from your own testing, typed in by you, the same as filling in the official template by hand. The only difference is what happens after you type: this tool assembles the same 50 criterion IDs and names correctly by construction, and checks the result against the two completeness rules above before you submit it -- it does not test, scan, or assess your product, and it never chooses a conformance level on your behalf.
Open the VPAT / Accessibility Conformance Report Generator, or read why procurement rejects a VPAT.