Loading report…

Issues found

Failing checkpoints by severity

Severity comes from the checkpoint registry, not from this run — it says how much a fix matters, not how badly the page is built. Counted across failing checkpoints only.

Scores partial — automated checks only

By POUR principle (conformance checkpoints)

What a person with a disability must review 0

What was checked — and the outcome

Every checkpoint the engine ran is listed, passes included, so this is a coverage document and not just a defect list. A failing row expands to show the CSS selector a developer would paste into devtools, with a copy button, and the code as served.

No checkpoint has this outcome. Pick another filter to see the rest of the coverage.

What this report is, and is not

• Automated conformance findings against WCAG 2.1 Level AA. Not a certification — a human audit by an IAAP-credentialed professional, including usability testing with persons with disabilities, is separately required.
• The score's denominator counts only the checkpoints this pass could decide; it never implies knowledge of what was not tested.
• Automation detects roughly 30–40% of WCAG issues. Anything needing human judgement is staged as needs review with the evidence already collected — never converted into a failure, and never into a pass.
• Conformance and advisory findings are scored separately and never merged: advisory items are good practice, not WCAG failures, and folding them together would misstate both numbers.