Audit overview
Accessibility and Content need attention; the other 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)
HSTS header is missing
Without HSTS, a network attacker can downgrade the very first connection to HTTP and steal the user's session.
10 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.
12 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.
7 image(s) missing alt attribute
Each image without alt text is a WCAG 1.1.1 failure — invisible to screen-reader users, lost from Google Image Search.
7 image-in-link without alt text
Image-only links with no alt create empty links — screen-reader users hear 'link' with no destination context.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
$325 investment → $7,216/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 ~24%.
- Page takes 5.8s to loadUsers abandon at ~3s — you're 3.3s over the 2.5s threshold→ Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
- 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
- No Open Graph tagsLinks shared on LinkedIn / Slack / Facebook show bare URLs — referral clicks drop→ Add og:title, og:description, og:image, og:url to the page head
- No structured dataNo rich-result eligibility in Google — lower SERP CTR vs competitors with stars and prices→ Add JSON-LD for your page type (Product, Article, FAQPage, LocalBusiness, …)
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
- Privacy Policy not detectedCCPA/CPRA: USD 2,500 – USD 7,500
- No <main> landmark foundADA Title III: USD 25,000 – USD 150,000
- Skip navigation link is missing (WCAG 2.4.1)ADA Title III: USD 25,000 – USD 150,000
Bounce-Rate Cost
$2,822 /mo
+24.3pp bounce · ~2,433 lost visitors/mo
CPC: USD 1.16
Bandwidth Waste
$0.26 /mo
3239.5 MB/mo × 0.080 USD/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~324 KB per page loadSaves $0.26/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.
2.88 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
5.83 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
78 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.
3.39 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.
6.01 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
670 ms
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
1.22 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
0 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.
670 ms
Time to Interactive Time to Interactive — how long until the page is fully interactive and responds to user input. Under 3.8s is good.
1.22 s
Categories
8Performance
All checks pass
Security
HSTS header is missing
Accessibility
10 button(s) with no accessible text
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.
Top 10% of Cart Functionality sites score 73+ on Accessibility; you're at 43 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
Animate.css, with Sucuri CDN
Stack Architecture
Cart Functionality 
Animate.css 
Bootstrap 4.6.0
FancyBox 3.3.1
Font Awesome Google Workspace 
HTTP/3 
OWL Carousel 
Popper 
Tailwind CSS 
jQuery 3.5.1
Sucuri All Detected Technologies (12)
Sucuri is a cybersecurity company that provides website security solutions and services.
Websites that have a shopping cart or checkout page, either using a known ecommerce platform or a custom solution.
Animate.css is a ready-to-use library collection of CSS3 animation effects.
Bootstrap is a free and open-source CSS framework directed at responsive, mobile-first front-end web development. It contains CSS and JavaScript-based design templates for typography, forms, buttons, navigation, and other interface components.
FancyBox is a tool for displaying images, html content and multi-media in a Mac-style 'lightbox' that floats overtop of web page.
Font Awesome is a font and icon toolkit based on CSS and Less.
HTTP/3 is the third major version of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol used to exchange information on the World Wide Web.
OWL Carousel is an enabled jQuery plugin that lets you create responsive carousel sliders.
Popper is a positioning engine, its purpose is to calculate the position of an element to make it possible to position it near a given reference element.
jQuery is a JavaScript library which is a free, open-source software designed to simplify HTML DOM tree traversal and manipulation, as well as event handling, CSS animation, and Ajax.
Observations (3)
No build tool detected
A framework (Animate.css) 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.
Bootstrap version may be outdated
Detected Bootstrap 4.6.0. The current major version is 5. Consider updating for security patches and new features.
Complex technology stack detected
12 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/c4cb31ec-7800-4f4b-acbb-bf24b77f4c45)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/c4cb31ec-7800-4f4b-acbb-bf24b77f4c45"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Flinuxmint.com" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Flinuxmint.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 (83)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+6Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · HSTS header is missing
- · 10 button(s) with no accessible text
- · 12 link(s) with no accessible text
- · 7 image-in-link without alt text
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+1Medium effort, high structural impact
- · 7 image(s) missing alt attribute