How to Evaluate Accessibility When Selecting Project Software

Selecting project software is a strategic decision that influences productivity, collaboration, reporting, and long-term operational efficiency. Project managers typically evaluate platforms based on functionality, cost, integration capabilities, scalability, and user experience. However, one critical factor is often overlooked during procurement: accessibility.

Table of Contents

Accessibility is not just a technical consideration. It is a compliance, risk management, and governance issue. When project software fails to meet accessibility standards, it can create barriers for employees with disabilities, introduce legal exposure under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and lead to costly remediation later. Evaluating accessibility during software selection helps organizations reduce risk while promoting inclusive and efficient project delivery.

Why Accessibility Matters in Project Software

Project software is central to modern workflows. Teams rely on digital tools for task tracking, communication, scheduling, document sharing, and performance reporting. If these tools are inaccessible, employees who use assistive technologies such as screen readers, voice recognition software, or keyboard navigation may face barriers in performing essential job functions.

Inaccessible systems can result in:

Reduced productivity
Delays in project execution
Increased support requests
Potential discrimination claims
Compliance challenges under ADA guidelines

By evaluating accessibility during procurement, project managers ensure that chosen platforms support all users and align with broader organizational compliance obligations.

Understand the Role of Accessibility Standards

Although the ADA does not prescribe detailed technical specifications for digital tools, courts and federal agencies commonly reference the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) as the benchmark for digital accessibility. When assessing project software, organizations should determine whether the platform aligns with WCAG 2.1 or WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards. These guidelines focus on four core principles:

Perceivable: Information must be presented in ways users can perceive, including text alternatives for non-text content. This ensures visual, auditory, and tactile content remains accessible through screen readers, captions, and descriptive labels for all users.
Operable: Users must be able to navigate and interact with the system using a keyboard or assistive devices. This principle guarantees that all functions work without requiring a mouse, accommodating users with motor disabilities or alternative input methods.
Understandable: Content and interface behavior should be clear and predictable. This means users can anticipate how features work, understand instructions easily, and receive helpful error messages that guide them toward successful task completion without confusion.
Robust: The system must be compatible with current and emerging assistive technologies. This ensures the software works reliably with screen readers, voice recognition tools, and other accessibility aids both now and as technology continues to evolve.

Understanding these principles provides a framework for evaluating whether software supports inclusive use.

Request Accessibility Documentation

During vendor evaluation, documentation plays a critical role. One key document to request is a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT), which outlines how a product conforms to accessibility standards. When reviewing a VPAT:

Verify which WCAG version and level are referenced in the documentation to ensure the software meets current accessibility standards and compliance requirements.
Check for detailed explanations rather than generic statements to understand specific accessibility features, their implementation, and how they address various user needs effectively.
Look for any noted exceptions or limitations in the accessibility documentation to identify potential barriers or areas where the software may not fully support users.
Confirm whether testing included assistive technology validation using actual tools like screen readers, voice recognition software, and keyboard navigation to verify real-world accessibility performance.

Documentation should be current and reflect recent product updates. Outdated reports may not accurately represent the platform’s present accessibility status.

Conduct Practical Accessibility Testing

Vendor documentation is helpful, but hands-on evaluation is equally important. Project managers and IT teams should test software directly before making a final decision.

Key practical checks include:

Navigating the platform using only a keyboard to ensure all interactive elements, menus, forms, and features are fully accessible without requiring a mouse.
Reviewing color contrast and readability to verify that text, buttons, icons, and visual elements meet WCAG standards for users with visual impairments or color blindness.
Testing form labels and error messages to confirm that all input fields have clear descriptions and validation errors provides helpful guidance for screen reader users.
Checking whether images include descriptive alternative text that accurately conveys visual information to users who rely on assistive technologies like screen readers for content access.
Verifying compatibility with screen readers by testing whether the software works reliably with assistive technologies such as JAWS, NVDA, or VoiceOver for blind users.

Even basic testing can reveal significant usability issues. For larger organizations, involving experienced accessibility consultants can provide deeper insight into compliance gaps and usability barriers. Structured testing conducted by specialists helps validate vendor claims and ensures alignment with recognized standards such as WCAG.

Consider Accessibility in Implementation Planning

Accessibility evaluation should extend beyond initial selection and procurement processes. Project managers must carefully consider how configuration choices, customization decisions, and ongoing content creation within the software may impact accessibility for users with disabilities. This includes reviewing uploaded documents, generated reports, custom workflows, and integration settings to ensure continued compliance throughout the software’s lifecycle.

For example:

Are uploaded documents required to meet accessibility standards?
Can dashboards and reports be generated in accessible formats?
Are training materials compatible with assistive technologies?

A platform may be technically accessible, but improper configuration or inaccessible content uploads can still create barriers. Implementation plans should include accessibility checkpoints to maintain compliance throughout deployment.

Assess Vendor Commitment to Accessibility

Accessibility is not static. Software platforms evolve through updates and feature releases. A vendor’s long-term commitment to accessibility is an important consideration. As digital tools advance and new features are introduced, vendors must prioritize accessibility compliance to ensure continued usability for all users, including those who rely on assistive technologies.

Questions to ask vendors include:

Is accessibility integrated into the product development lifecycle?
Are accessibility improvements documented in release notes?
Is there a dedicated accessibility contact or support channel?
How frequently is accessibility testing conducted?

A vendor that treats accessibility as an ongoing priority reduces the likelihood of future compliance gaps.

Accessibility as a Risk Management Strategy

From a project management perspective, accessibility should be included in risk registers and governance reviews. It is a critical component of comprehensive project planning and oversight. Selecting inaccessible software can introduce hidden risks such as:

Budget overruns due to retrofitting accessibility features after initial implementation, requiring additional development resources, testing cycles, and unexpected financial expenditures that impact project profitability significantly.
Delays caused by required remediation of accessibility issues discovered post-deployment, thus disrupting project timelines, extending delivery schedules, and potentially compromising stakeholder commitments and organizational deadlines.
Employee dissatisfaction and turnover that results from the inability to effectively use inaccessible tools, creating frustration, reducing productivity, lowering morale, and increasing recruitment costs for replacements.
Reputational damage from accessibility failures that demonstrate a lack of inclusive practices, potentially harming brand perception, customer trust, stakeholder confidence, and overall organizational standing within the industry.

By evaluating accessibility upfront, project managers mitigate these risks before they affect scope, timeline, and cost. Accessibility also aligns with broader enterprise risk management goals. Digital tools that support all users contribute to stronger organizational resilience and sustainability.

Aligning Accessibility with Organizational Values

Beyond project compliance and risk mitigation, accessibility supports inclusion and equal opportunity. Project software is often the backbone of collaboration and communication. Ensuring equal access reinforces organizational commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion. When digital systems are designed for broad usability, teams benefit from improved clarity, better navigation, and fewer usability barriers. These improvements enhance overall project performance, not just accessibility outcomes.

Conclusion

Evaluating accessibility when selecting project software is a strategic responsibility that requires careful attention and planning. Project managers play a key role in ensuring that digital tools support compliance requirements, reduce legal exposure, and promote inclusive participation across diverse teams. By aligning procurement decisions with recognized accessibility standards such as WCAG, requesting appropriate documentation from vendors, conducting practical testing, and considering long-term vendor commitment, organizations can select platforms that strengthen both operational efficiency and compliance posture.

Accessibility is not an optional add-on in modern project environments. It is a fundamental component of responsible software selection and effective project governance. Organizations that prioritize accessibility from the beginning create more inclusive workplaces, reduce remediation costs, improve user experience for all employees, and demonstrate their commitment to equal opportunity. This proactive approach benefits everyone while minimizing compliance risks and supporting organizational values of diversity and inclusion.