Start with detectable barriers
Surface issues such as missing programmatic labels, contrast warnings, document structure problems, and other machine-testable signals.
Website accessibility audit
Use automated evidence to identify accessibility issues worth investigating, put serious barriers first, and support a broader review that includes keyboard use, screen readers, zoom, content, and real people.
No card required · Eight category scores · A sample of key findings
Turn diagnostics into direction
Tools can consistently detect some failures, but they cannot determine whether every interaction is understandable, usable, or conformant. Treat automated findings as evidence for prioritization—not a certification or guarantee.
Surface issues such as missing programmatic labels, contrast warnings, document structure problems, and other machine-testable signals.
Investigate problems that block navigation, understanding, input, or completion of essential tasks before cosmetic issues.
Add keyboard, screen-reader, zoom, responsive, content, and task-based testing to cover what automation cannot judge.
What the audit checks
No single score explains the whole visitor experience. Review the areas together, then act in priority order.
Review loading speed and the experience visitors have while key pages become usable.
Surface detectable barriers that can make content and controls harder to use.
Check signals that help search engines discover, understand, and present key pages.
Review structure and identity signals that can help AI systems interpret the site.
Look for connections to Google Maps and major social profiles where relevant.
Review contact, company, policy, and identity signals that support confidence.
Find detectable browser, safety, and implementation issues worth investigating.
Check whether visitors can understand the offer and find a clear next action.
A practical workflow
Enter the public website address to review the current detectable signals.
Use the ranked findings to separate urgent issues from worthwhile later improvements.
Hand the evidence to the right person, make the change, and retest rather than assuming it worked.
From finding to fix plan
SiteFixPlan groups the evidence, explains why it matters, and puts the highest-priority work first.
Questions, answered
No. Automated tools can detect only a subset of possible issues and cannot prove full conformance. A meaningful review also needs manual testing, expert judgment, and ideally testing with people who use assistive technologies.
Manual review commonly includes keyboard navigation, focus order and visibility, screen-reader names and announcements, zoom and reflow, error handling, media alternatives, content clarity, and completion of real tasks.
Prioritize barriers that prevent people from accessing content, navigating, understanding controls, entering information, or completing essential tasks. Consider severity, reach, frequency, and the importance of the affected journey.
No. SiteFixPlan provides informational, automated findings to support investigation and improvement. It does not provide legal advice, certify compliance, or replace a qualified accessibility assessment.
Start with the site you have today
Get your overall score, eight category scores, and a sample of prioritized findings free.
Run my free website snapshot