Understanding your results
When we scan your site we don't just hand you a list of WCAG codes — we translate every issue into plain English, rate how risky it is under the European Accessibility Act, and tell you which one to fix first. This page explains exactly how that ranking works so the score and the fix list are predictable, not magic.
What the 0–100 score means
Every page is scored 0 to 100. A page with zero detected violations scores 100. After that, we subtract a weighted penalty: 15 points for each critical violation, 8 for serious, 3 for moderate, 1 for minor — capped so no single page can fall below zero. The site score is the average across the pages we scanned. The score is deterministic: the same page always produces the same number.
How we rate legal risk
Legal risk is high, medium, or low. We blend axe-core's severity with how aggressively European Accessibility Act enforcement bodies treat each WCAG criterion. Missing alt text, low contrast, unlabeled controls, language declarations, and keyboard traps are always high risk — those are the issues that show up first in formal complaints. Structural best-practice issues (heading order, landmark uniqueness) are low risk: real but unlikely to trigger enforcement.
How we estimate fix effort
Effort is trivial, quick, medium, or larger. Trivial means one attribute or one CSS value ("add alt to this image"). Quick is a small edit in one component. Medium needs product or design judgement — copy decisions, focus order, navigation chrome. Larger means a structural refactor. We bias toward the lower estimate when we're unsure so the list reflects what you can actually ship today.
Why we rank issues, not just list them
An unsorted list of 40 violations is paralysing. We sort the list so the single best next fix is on top: highest legal risk, then cheapest to fix at that risk level, then axe's own severity as the tiebreak. Two issues that compare equal use a stable internal key so the order never flips between runs. "X fixes to reach 100%" tells you how many items separate you from a clean scan.
Why we never use colour alone
Severity and effort are shown with both an icon and a translated word — never colour alone. WCAG 1.4.1 forbids relying on colour to convey information, so a tool that flags WCAG violations using only red and green would be ironic and unusable.
The reassurance message
Compliance work feels intimidating; we want the verdict to feel like a punch list, not a verdict. When you score 100 with zero issues we celebrate it ("You're at 100. Nothing's blocking you."). Otherwise we tell you how far you are and how many fixes stand between you and a clean run.
See it on your page
Open any fix and we'll show you a screenshot of your page with the offending element outlined, so you don't have to dig through HTML. The image is a full-page capture taken at the moment of the scan; the highlight uses the same coordinates the scanner measured, so what you see is exactly where the issue is. Other issues on the same page are dimmed in the background — pick a different fix from the list to swap which one is loud. Previews are served from short-lived signed URLs scoped to your scan, so screenshots that may contain private content stay private.
Standards we map to
- WCAG 2.1 / 2.2 success criteria at the A and AA levels (the tags axe-core runs).
- EN 301 549 — the European standard the EAA points at for digital accessibility.
- axe-core rule metadata for impact, selectors, and bounding boxes.
Guidance, not legal certification
These scores and risk ratings are automated guidance. They are not a legal opinion and do not certify compliance with any specific national implementation of the EAA. For a binding assessment, consult a qualified accessibility auditor.
