Skip to main content

Public sample

Citylights sample report

https://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/before/home.html

A clear starting point for your accessibility audit.

Captured 23 Sept 2026, 21:22 UTC. Four declared archive pages.

Download report
PDF reportHTML reportCSV reportJSON report

Homepage preview

Preserved homepage screenshot of Citylights sample report
Top of the preserved desktop capture.
Pages in inventory
4
Shared layouts
1
Recommended audit pages
4

How we describe complexity

The features on a page tell us how much there is to review.

Simple

No forms, media, embedded tools or interactive components were recorded. Mostly reading and navigation.

Moderate

Some extra checks: a form, table, media player, embedded tool or interactive control. One to three complexity points.

Complex

Several interaction types or multiple forms. Four or more complexity points, or at least two forms.

How the rating is calculated

Forms, dialogs, date inputs, media and embedded services add two points each. Tables, tabs and expandable controls add one each. Detected interactive third-party tools add two points when no embedded service was already counted. Each feature type is counted once. This estimates review effort from the captured page, not accessibility quality. Hidden states can increase the work.

Not assessed means that capture or detailed feature evidence is missing.

Pages and layouts

Every discovered URL and its review complexity. Layout groups are inferred from analyzed page structure; CMS template names have not been verified.

Ideal audit scope

4 recommended pages

All 2 unique pages, plus two different URLs from each of 1 shared layouts.

How we choose the sample

Include every unique page and two different URLs from each repeated template. Choose the structural representative first, then a page with different recorded features or language, preferring greater complexity. Template names describe likely shared layouts, not confirmed CMS templates. An auditor should confirm the grouping and extend the sample for important variations.

Third-party tools to include

Chat tools, accessibility widgets, plugins and embedded services can add their own controls and states.

No supported integrations were identified in the inspected markup.

Inspected 4 of 4 analyzed pages. Observed scripts, frames and plugin assets identify likely integrations. They do not prove a tool was active or fully tested. Tools loaded after consent, login or interaction may be missing. This sample inspects an inert archive whose source scripts were removed; it does not describe integrations on the original live site.

Take the scope with you

The same page inventory, sample recommendations and review notes, ready to share.

Download report
PDF reportHTML reportCSV reportJSON report

This is a proposed audit scope. Generating a report does not complete a manual audit or establish WCAG conformance. Private and unlinked content needs a separate scope decision.

Now see the scope of your own site.

Start with a public domain. Keep the inventory and evidence together.

Generate a scoping report