Reading the scan report
What the figures, findings, occurrences, severity levels and evidence images in the scan report mean – and how to tell how reliable a result is.
The scan report is the result of a scan. While the scan is running, it shows the progress and updates itself. Afterwards it has five parts.
1. The figures
- “Pages tested” – how many of the selected pages could be evaluated.
- “Open findings” – how many rules have at least one open occurrence.
- “Success criteria affected” – how many WCAG criteria are affected.
Below that, the report explains how pages were selected: how many were found through the sitemap and through links on the home page, how many of them were scanned and how many are excluded by robots.txt.
How reliable the result is
If not all selected pages could be loaded, the report says so, with the share of evaluated pages. Below 80 %, the result does not support a conformance statement, and no statement can be published from it: From scan to published statement.
If the keyboard walk-through ended early on a page, the report says that too. It makes no statement about the elements not reached there.
2. The findings
A finding stands for one rule – for example “insufficient contrast” – and groups all occurrences of that rule. Each finding shows:
- the severity: “critical”, “serious”, “moderate” or “minor”,
- the affected success criteria,
- on how many pages it occurs.
Findings on criteria added with WCAG 2.2 are marked as recommended.
Expanded, a finding shows every occurrence: the page, the element’s selector (or the entire page), the measured value – for example the actual contrast ratio – and, where relevant, the state in which the element becomes visible, such as only in the opened menu. A maximum number of occurrences is recorded per rule and page; the report says when there may be more.
Evidence images are taken for the first occurrences on each page. Where there is none, the selector and measured value document the occurrence. Evidence images are deleted after 90 days; the report itself stays readable.
You can assess every finding – for example as “no defect”: Reviewing findings.
Findings from the consent layer
Findings caused by a cookie banner are grouped separately. They count, but their cause usually lies in the configuration or choice of consent tool, not in your own source code.
3. To review
Spots the scan could not decide reliably. You assess them per occurrence: Assessing uncertain results.
4. Your assessment
The manual checks, with how many are still open and the “Answer the checks now” button: Answering the manual checks.
5. Accessibility statement
The way to the draft: “View draft”. How it continues from there: From scan to published statement.
Who can see the report
A report in your account is only visible to members of your organization. Anyone who is not signed in and opens a link to it – for example from the WordPress plugin – is taken to the sign-in page and back to the report afterwards. Reports of a free scan without an account can be reached through their unguessable address.
Last checked against the product on September 13, 2026. As Markdown
Related articles
-
Reviewing findings
How to classify a finding as no defect, won’t be fixed or disproportionate burden – and what each assessment does in the accessibility statement.
-
Assessing uncertain results
What the occurrences listed for review mean, how to classify them as a defect or not, and why they count neither as passed nor as failed.
-
Answering the manual checks
Why some requirements can only be judged by you, how to answer the manual checks and why no statement appears without your answers.
-
What the service checks – and what it doesn’t
Which requirements the automated scan measures, where it is uncertain, what only you can judge and why the service never changes your website.
Still have a question?
Tell us which question is still open. Questions we hear more than once become new help articles.