VPAT Example: A Complete Accessibility Conformance Report

55Criteria evaluated

37Supports

17Partially supports

1Not applicable

Product and report information

Name of product / version: Brightleaf Wellness Co. storefront. A live web storefront with no version number; the version evaluated is the site as it stood in May 2026.
Report date: May 2026
Product description: Online store for wellness products, built on Shopify.
Contact information: Vendor contact withheld for this sample. Evaluator: Harbor Accessibility Co., aszigety@harboraccessibility.com
Notes: Anonymized sample of a real client report. The client's name and domain are withheld; the findings and conformance levels are those of the real audit.
Evaluation methods used: Manual testing with keyboard-only navigation and the NVDA screen reader, supported by automated scanning. Every reported failure was confirmed by hand. Five representative page templates were tested: home, collection, product, terms and conditions, and a product quiz.
Evaluator: Andrew Szigety. Certified as a DHS Trusted Tester for Web after this report was issued (TT‑2606‑09221, June 2026).

Applicable standards and guidelines

Standard / guideline	Included in report
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0	Level A (Yes) · Level AA (Yes) · Level AAA (No)
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1	Level A (Yes) · Level AA (Yes) · Level AAA (No)
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2	Level A (Yes) · Level AA (Yes) · Level AAA (No)

WCAG 2.2 includes every WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 criterion except 4.1.1 Parsing, which WCAG 2.2 removed. The tables below cover 2.0 and 2.1 through 2.2, so 4.1.1 is not evaluated.

Terms

Supports: The functionality of the product has at least one method that meets the criterion without known defects or meets with equivalent facilitation.
Partially Supports: Some functionality of the product does not meet the criterion.
Does Not Support: The majority of product functionality does not meet the criterion.
Not Applicable: The criterion is not relevant to the product.
Not Evaluated: The product has not been evaluated against the criterion. This can only be used in WCAG Level AAA criteria.

In this report, Supports means no failure was found on the pages in scope. Every Level A and AA criterion was evaluated; none is left pending.

Scope and limits of this report

This is an honest statement of what the evaluation does and does not establish.

Findings apply to the five page templates listed under Evaluation methods used, at the time of testing. They are not a claim about every page of the site.
WCAG 2.2 removed SC 4.1.1 (Parsing). It is therefore not evaluated and emits no row, so this report covers 55 Level A and AA criteria.
A conformance evaluation over a sample of pages can demonstrate that a product fails a criterion. It cannot prove that every page of the product passes it.

Table 1: Success Criteria, Level A

WCAG 2.2 Level A 31 criteria. 8 partially support; the remainder support.
Criterion	Conformance level	Remarks and explanations
1.1.1 Non-text Content A	Partially Supports	Image Alt Text. 14 issues, each listed with its affected elements in the remediation plan. Product and content images carried filename-based or empty alt text where a description was required. Decorative images were not consistently hidden from assistive technology. Remediation steps and code-level fixes are in the published remediation plan.
1.2.1 Audio-only and Video-only (Prerecorded) A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded) A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded) A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
1.3.1 Info and Relationships A	Partially Supports	Semantic Markup and Structure. 5 issues, each listed with its affected elements in the remediation plan. Headings and lists were styled visually rather than marked up semantically, so structure was not conveyed programmatically. Remediation steps and code-level fixes are in the published remediation plan.
1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence A	Partially Supports	Meaningful Reading Order. 6 issues, each listed with its affected elements in the remediation plan. DOM order diverged from visual order in several layout regions, producing a reading sequence that did not match the presentation. Remediation steps and code-level fixes are in the published remediation plan.
1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
1.4.1 Use of Color A	Partially Supports	Use of Color. 1 issue, listed with its affected elements in the remediation plan. Colour alone was used to distinguish a state, with no accompanying text or shape cue. Remediation steps and code-level fixes are in the published remediation plan.
1.4.2 Audio Control A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.1.1 Keyboard A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.2.1 Timing Adjustable A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.3.1 Three Flashes or Below Threshold A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.4.1 Bypass Blocks A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.4.2 Page Titled A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.4.3 Focus Order A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) A	Partially Supports	Descriptive Link Text. 2 issues, each listed with its affected elements in the remediation plan. Link text did not describe its destination when read out of context. Remediation steps and code-level fixes are in the published remediation plan.
2.5.1 Pointer Gestures A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.5.3 Label in Name A	Partially Supports	Label in Name. 1 issue, listed with its affected elements in the remediation plan. A control's accessible name did not contain its visible label text, so voice-control users could not target it by name. Remediation steps and code-level fixes are in the published remediation plan.
2.5.4 Motion Actuation A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
3.1.1 Language of Page A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
3.2.1 On Focus A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
3.2.2 On Input A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
3.2.6 Consistent Help A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
3.3.1 Error Identification A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
3.3.2 Labels or Instructions A	Partially Supports	Form Labels and Instructions. 1 issue, listed with its affected elements in the remediation plan. A required email field gave no visible indication in its label that it was required. Remediation steps and code-level fixes are in the published remediation plan.
3.3.7 Redundant Entry A	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
4.1.2 Name, Role, Value A	Partially Supports	Interactive Element Roles and Names. 5 issues, each listed with its affected elements in the remediation plan. Custom interactive components did not expose an accessible name, role, or state to assistive technology. Remediation steps and code-level fixes are in the published remediation plan.

Table 2: Success Criteria, Level AA

WCAG 2.2 Level AA 24 criteria. 9 partially support, 1 does not apply, and the remainder support.
Criterion	Conformance level	Remarks and explanations
1.2.4 Captions (Live) AA	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded) AA	Partially Supports	Audio Description. Pre-recorded video content did not provide an audio description track. Remediation steps and code-level fixes for this criterion are in the complete audit report delivered to the client, which is not published.
1.3.4 Orientation AA	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose AA	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) AA	Partially Supports	Text Colour Contrast. Body and secondary text fell below the 4.5:1 minimum contrast ratio in several components. Remediation steps and code-level fixes for this criterion are in the complete audit report delivered to the client, which is not published.
1.4.4 Resize Text AA	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
1.4.5 Images of Text AA	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
1.4.10 Reflow AA	Partially Supports	Content Reflow. Horizontal scrolling was introduced at 320 CSS pixels in some regions. Remediation steps and code-level fixes for this criterion are in the complete audit report delivered to the client, which is not published.
1.4.11 Non-text Contrast AA	Partially Supports	UI Component Contrast. Control boundaries and interface graphics fell below the 3:1 minimum for non-text contrast. Remediation steps and code-level fixes for this criterion are in the complete audit report delivered to the client, which is not published.
1.4.12 Text Spacing AA	Partially Supports	Text Spacing and Overflow. Content was clipped or overlapped when user text-spacing overrides were applied. Remediation steps and code-level fixes for this criterion are in the complete audit report delivered to the client, which is not published.
1.4.13 Content on Hover or Focus AA	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.4.5 Multiple Ways AA	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.4.6 Headings and Labels AA	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.4.7 Focus Visible AA	Partially Supports	Keyboard Focus Indicators. Focus was not visible on some interactive elements when navigating by keyboard. Remediation steps and code-level fixes for this criterion are in the complete audit report delivered to the client, which is not published.
2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) AA	Partially Supports	Focus Not Obscured. A sticky region obscured the focused element during keyboard navigation. Remediation steps and code-level fixes for this criterion are in the complete audit report delivered to the client, which is not published.
2.5.7 Dragging Movements AA	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) AA	Partially Supports	Minimum Target Size. Some pointer targets were below the 24 by 24 CSS pixel minimum without adequate spacing. Remediation steps and code-level fixes for this criterion are in the complete audit report delivered to the client, which is not published.
3.1.2 Language of Parts AA	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
3.2.3 Consistent Navigation AA	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
3.2.4 Consistent Identification AA	Partially Supports	Consistent Component Naming. Components with the same function were named inconsistently across pages. Remediation steps and code-level fixes for this criterion are in the complete audit report delivered to the client, which is not published.
3.3.3 Error Suggestion AA	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
3.3.4 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data) AA	Not Applicable	No page in scope completes a legal commitment, a financial transaction or a change to stored user data. Cart and checkout were outside the five templates evaluated.
3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) AA	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.
4.1.3 Status Messages AA	Supports	No failures identified on the pages in scope.

Table 3: Success Criteria, Level AAA

Not Evaluated. Level AAA criteria are outside this report's Level AA conformance target.

Legal disclaimer

This report describes the pages listed under Evaluation methods used, as they stood when tested in May 2026. It records the conformance levels observed at that time. It is not legal advice or a certification of compliance with any law, and it does not guarantee how the product performs after the report date.