// Replace title block colour with text shadow

This post is the first in a two-part series exploring how libraries and vendors can build meaningful, lasting partnerships around accessibility. Drawing on real-world experiences from ER&L 2025, we begin by examining how internal alignment and thoughtful licensing strategies can lay the groundwork for more effective collaboration.

Author
Cody W. Hackett, Director of Continuing Electronic Resources, Acquisitions, and Licensing - University of Arkansas Libraries

Session and blog contributors
Jessica D. Gilbert Redman, Online Resources & Services Librarian, University of North Dakota
Lorenzo Milani, UX specialist, Sage
Rachel Crookes, Sage Campus


When we set out to present Let’s Talk Accessibility at ER&L 2025, our goal was clear: to shine a spotlight on the conversations happening between libraries and vendors around accessibility. Too often, accessibility is treated as a compliance task—something to confirm during renewals and forget until the next problem surfaces. But genuine access isn’t a box to tick; it’s a strategy that should inform everything from procurement decisions to platform design.

This session grew directly out of our lived experiences advocating for accessibility in different corners of the library world. I joined the panel as a licensing lead and electronic resources librarian—not an accessibility expert—alongside Jessica Gilbert Redman, Online Resources and Services Librarian at the University of North Dakota’s School of Medicine and Health Sciences, and our partners at Sage, Rachel Crookes and Lorenzo Milani, who are actively integrating accessibility into product development. We wanted to demonstrate how thoughtful collaboration—both within institutions and with vendors—can move accessibility from principle to practice.

Two Conversations, One Goal

We shared a framework that divided accessibility conversations into two paths: structured negotiations and exploratory conversations. Structured negotiations are the legal side—license language, amendments, and documented expectations. Exploratory conversations are relationship-driven—asking vendors about their roadmaps, inviting their accessibility teams to meetings, and offering real feedback from our communities.

What surprised many attendees (and honestly, surprised us as we built the presentation) was how powerful that second path can be. When vendors hear specific stories—like a screen reader that can’t navigate a calendar interface, or PDFs in a medical library database that are completely inaccessible—they often respond with more urgency than when they’re simply handed a WCAG checklist.

Laying the Groundwork Internally

Before any productive conversation can happen with vendors, libraries need to align internally around what they’re asking for—and why. Too often, accessibility requirements show up late in the negotiation process or are dropped in ad hoc. To make accessibility a consistent and enforceable part of our agreements, it has to be embedded from the beginning—with buy-in from across the institution.

At the University of Arkansas, we’ve started working toward tiered licensing language that reflects three escalating levels of accessibility protection: aspirational, achievable, and legally required. This structure acknowledges that not all vendors are equally mature in their accessibility journeys, but it also makes clear that inaction isn’t acceptable.

  • Ideal language might include requirements for user testing with assistive technologies, ongoing accessibility roadmaps, and quarterly updates.

  • Middle-ground language sets firm but reachable commitments—especially for vendors making genuine progress but who haven’t yet hit every milestone.

  • Baseline legal compliance meets state and federal minimums, often necessary with less responsive or less customizable vendors.

Developing this structure requires collaboration with stakeholders: general counsel helps us understand legal boundaries, campus IT assists with VPAT review and testing, library administration sets the tone by embedding accessibility into strategic goals, and front-line staff contribute vital insight into user experience.

The result of this collaboration is a licensing strategy that is not only more enforceable, but more realistic—grounded in our values while flexible enough to move us forward, one agreement at a time.

Behind the Curtain: The Vendor's Accessibility Journey

For vendors, accessibility work can be daunting in scope. Rachel Crookes from Sage Campus provided a revealing glimpse into what this looks like in practice. What started as a routine VPAT assessment in 2020 eventually evolved into a two-year remediation project involving:

  • Auditing over 750 individual web pages with multiple interactive elements each

  • Rebuilding nearly 300 interactive activities from scratch

  • Adding over 200 missing aria labels and alternative text descriptions

  • Remediating 250 PDFs to meet accessibility standards

"It's never 'done,'" Rachel emphasized. "When your updated VPAT comes back saying 'Tested. Further Work Needed,' it can be demoralizing after months of effort."

Conclusion: Building the Future, One Conversation at a Time

Accessibility isn’t a solo effort—it’s a shared, evolving practice. Our ER&L session was about showing how healthy library-vendor relationships can contribute to that practice: through better licensing language, ongoing communication, and a deeper commitment to user experience. From internal alignment to vendor partnership, we’re learning that accessibility advocacy works best when it’s continuous, collaborative, and rooted in real-world use.

Read part 2.