Reading your report

The most important page in this guide. Click any page in Pages to open its report.

The four result buckets#

Do not ignore Incomplete. It does not mean "fine". It means the scanner hit something it cannot evaluate — text over a background image, a control whose purpose depends on context. These are often real problems that automation cannot confirm.

You may also see Partial coverage near the score. That flags that some content — typically third-party iframes — could not be scanned, and the report is for what Zylyn could reach.

The score counts Level A and AA checks and best practices. Level AAA findings are listed but don't change the score. They sit at the end of the Issues and Manual review tabs under a "Level AAA" heading, each marked "Not counted", so you can see them without them moving the number. AAA is the strictest WCAG level, beyond what Level AA conformance asks for.

Severity: what to fix first#

Four levels, and they are a genuine priority order:

Fix Critical and Serious first. They are both the largest real-world barriers and the findings that appear in legal complaints.

WCAG failures versus best practice#

This trips people up, so it's worth being precise.

Each finding is tagged either with a WCAG level and criterion (e.g. WCAG AA · 1.4.3) or with WCAG BEST PRACTICE.

• A tagged criterion = a failure against the actual standard. This is what conformance and legal exposure are judged on.
• BEST PRACTICE = a recommendation that improves accessibility but is not a WCAG failure. Examples: "Document should have one main landmark", "All page content should be contained by landmarks", "The skip-link target should exist and be focusable".

Both are worth fixing. But if someone asks "are we WCAG conformant?", only the tagged criteria answer that question — and a page can look alarming while having only one or two real failures. When reporting to a client or a board, count the WCAG-tagged findings, not the raw total.

Per-finding detail#

Expand any finding and you get:

• Plain-English explanation of the rule, plus a Learn more link to the full documentation
• Affected elements, each with its CSS selector and the actual markup from your page
• The precise problem. Contrast findings include the measured ratio, both colours, font size and weight, and the required ratio — for example:

That is enough for a developer to fix without guessing. Hand them the selector and the numbers.

Where a finding affects many elements, the report shows the first five and tells you the total.

What automated scanning cannot find#

Be clear-eyed about this, because it determines how much assurance a clean report gives you.

Automated tools reliably cover roughly 20–40% of WCAG success criteria. They are excellent at mechanical checks — missing alt text, contrast ratios, unlabelled form fields, heading structure. They cannot assess:

• Whether alt text is meaningful (alt="image123" passes; it helps nobody)
• Whether keyboard focus order makes logical sense
• Whether a screen reader announces a custom control usefully
• Whether an error message actually tells the user how to recover
• Whether your content is understandable

A 100/100 score does not mean your site is accessible. It means the machine-checkable part is clean. For conformance you can defend, you need manual testing with assistive technology — use Request remediation help on any report.

Actions available on a report#