Audit overview
Accessibility needs attention; the rest of the categories are in good shape.
Fix Priority Matrix
5 findingsQuick Wins
4High impact, low effort — start here.
Strategic
1High impact, requires investment.
Easy Improvements
0Small gains, minimal effort.
Nothing in this quadrant — good news.
Deprioritize
0Low impact, high effort — do last.
Nothing in this quadrant — good news.
Screenshots
Top Priorities (5)
1 control(s) without accessible label
Form controls without labels — assistive tech announces 'edit text' with no context; users can't complete forms.
12 image-only link(s) without alt text
Image-only links with no alt are unidentifiable to screen-reader users — link's destination is invisible.
2 link(s) with no accessible text
Links with no accessible text (empty <a></a>, image-only no alt, icon-only no aria-label) are unidentifiable to screen readers.
3 button(s) with no accessible text
Buttons with no accessible text (icon-only, no aria-label) can't be activated by voice control or understood by screen readers.
Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages
Soft 404s (HTTP 200 for missing pages) confuse Google — it indexes the 'not found' page as real content and ranks it.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
$300 investment → $10,843/month returns + USD 157,500 risk avoided
Figures combine localized regulatory fine ceilings, search/conversion value priced against local CPC, and bandwidth waste estimates. Results depend on implementation quality and audience composition. Not legal or financial advice.
Conversion barriers
7 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~27%.
- Page takes 4.7s to loadUsers abandon at ~3s — you're 2.2s over the 2.5s threshold→ Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
- High main-thread blocking timePage is non-interactive for 291ms after first paint→ Defer third-party scripts and split large bundles
- No HSTS headerReturning visitors are briefly exposed to downgrade attacks on first request→ Set Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains
- No Content-Security-Policy headerHigher XSS blast radius — one compromised script can exfiltrate the checkout form→ Ship a reporting-only CSP first, then enforce once violations are clean
- 1 form field(s) without a labelScreen readers skip unlabeled fields; autofill can't identify them; checkout abandonment spikes→ Associate every input with a visible <label for="…">; add autocomplete attributes
Preliminary CRO audit — each barrier links to the tab with detailed analysis.
Remediation cost
Start here for the best return on investment
Cost by category
Cost by effort level
Adjust assumptions
Team composition
Multiplier applied to dev hours to reflect QA, design, and PM overhead. Use Dev only for solo work; Full team for projects with formal review processes.
Rates reflect fully-loaded developer cost including overhead
Warning:Cost of inaction
Compliance Risk
$157,500
- No privacy policy link detectedCCPA/CPRA: USD 2,500 – USD 7,500
- Trackers detected but no cookie policy foundCCPA/CPRA: USD 2,500 – USD 7,500
- Trackers detected but no privacy policy foundCCPA/CPRA: USD 2,500 – USD 7,500
Bounce-Rate Cost
$7,271 /mo
+27.0pp bounce · ~2,703 lost visitors/mo
CPC: USD 2.69
Bandwidth Waste
$0.33 /mo
4137.7 MB/mo × 0.080 USD/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~414 KB per page loadSaves $0.33/mo
Compliance figures represent the statutory maximum fine for the most severe triggered category, capped per regulation — not the sum of per-finding penalties. Based on published regulatory fine ranges. This is not legal advice.
Unique monthly visitors from your analytics
Purchases, signups, or key actions
Optional — for revenue estimation
more engaged visitors from reduced bounce
Fix 5 critical issues to capture this value
How this is calculated
Based on Google/Deloitte research ("Milliseconds Make Millions") showing a ~7% bounce rate increase per additional second of LCP above the 2.5s "Good" threshold.
Your site's LCP: → estimated after fixes.
These are estimates based on industry research — actual results vary
Your data stays in your browser — nothing is sent to our servers
Lighthouse
Mobile
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
2.81 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
4.74 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
291 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.000
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
3.09 s
Time to Interactive Time to Interactive — how long until the page is fully interactive and responds to user input. Under 3.8s is good.
9.79 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
1.16 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
1.40 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
11 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.000
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
1.16 s
Time to Interactive Time to Interactive — how long until the page is fully interactive and responds to user input. Under 3.8s is good.
2.09 s
Categories
8Performance
All checks pass
Security
All checks pass
Accessibility
1 control(s) without accessible label
SEO
All checks pass
Infrastructure
All checks pass
Compliance
All checks pass
Content
All checks pass
Sustainability
All checks pass
How you compare
Where this site stands against peers running the same stack.
Technology stack
Wagtail, on Java, hosted on OpenGSE
Stack Architecture
Google Analytics 
Google Tag Manager 
Wagtail 
Django Facebook Google Domains 
Google Font API Google Search Console HSTS 
HTTP/3 
Open Graph 
Priority Hints 
Tailwind CSS 
lit-element 3.3.3 lit-html 2.8.0
Java 
Python 
OpenGSE All Detected Technologies (18)
OpenGSE is a test suite used for testing servlet compliance. It is deployed by using WAR files that are deployed on the server engine.
Java is a class-based, object-oriented programming language that is designed to have as few implementation dependencies as possible.
Python is an interpreted and general-purpose programming language.
Wagtail is a Django content management system (CMS) focused on flexibility and user experience.
Django is a Python-based free and open-source web application framework.
Google Font API is a web service that supports open-source font files that can be used on your web designs.
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) informs browsers that the site should only be accessed using HTTPS.
HTTP/3 is the third major version of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol used to exchange information on the World Wide Web.
Open Graph is a protocol that is used to integrate any web page into the social graph.
Priority Hints exposes a mechanism for developers to signal a relative priority for browsers to consider when fetching resources.
lit-element is a simple base class for creating web components that work in any web page with any framework. lit-element uses lit-html to render into shadow DOM, and adds API to manage properties and attributes.
lit-html is a simple, modern, safe, small and fast HTML templating library for JavaScript.
Google Analytics is a free web analytics service that tracks and reports website traffic.
Google Tag Manager is a tag management system (TMS) that allows you to quickly and easily update measurement codes and related code fragments collectively known as tags on your website or mobile app.
Observations (2)
No build tool detected
A framework (Django) was detected but no bundler was identified. The build tool may not be detectable from output patterns, or the site may use the framework's built-in bundler.
Complex technology stack detected
18 technologies identified. A complex stack increases maintenance burden and attack surface. Consider whether all components are actively needed.
Show your score
Drop this badge on your README, marketing site, or status page. It auto-updates every time the audit re-runs and links back to this report.
This badge auto-updates with your latest scan result.
[](https://beavercheck.com/results/87357764-348c-4fb1-b061-d879f4d4935f)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/87357764-348c-4fb1-b061-d879f4d4935f"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgoogleblog.com" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgoogleblog.comExport & share
Download the audit, share with your team, or grab a fix plan ready to copy into your tracker.
Copies markdown to clipboard
Fix Plan
Three-week roadmap to ship the audit's findings, with one-click copy targets for your tracker.
Three-week fix plan
2 sprints · 3h total → projected B (82)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+4Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · 12 image-only link(s) without alt text
- · 2 link(s) with no accessible text
- · 3 button(s) with no accessible text
- · Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
Medium effort, high structural impact
- · 1 control(s) without accessible label