Sample website review report

Illustrative example, prepared from the short markup below. This is not a customer audit. No live website was scanned, and no performance, traffic or conversion measurements are claimed.

A project report would identify the reviewed URLs, agreed scope, methods, observation dates, evidence and any limits to the assessment. These four findings demonstrate the format using a fictional example store.

Example findings and next steps

Example priorities put the exposed form data first, followed by completing the form, describing the page and reserving image space. An actual review would assess user impact, context and implementation effort before agreeing priorities.

1. Security: the form targets an HTTP address

Example priority: High

Evidence: The supplied form action is http://example.test/contact.
Why it matters: An HTTP destination does not encrypt the submitted email address in transit. Browser warnings or blocking also depend on the page and browser context.
Recommended change: Use an HTTPS destination and serve the form page over HTTPS. Confirm that the destination accepts and handles submissions securely.
How to verify: On an authorized test environment, submit synthetic data and inspect the complete request and redirect chain. Confirm each request carrying form data uses HTTPS.

Reference: MDN: sending form data.

2. Accessibility: the email field lacks a label

Example priority: High

Evidence: The email input has no associated label or other accessible name in the example.
Why it matters: Visitors need to understand which information to enter, including when using a screen reader.
Recommended change: Add a visible <label for="email">Email address</label> and give the input id="email". Provide clear required-field instructions if applicable.
How to verify: Check the accessibility tree for the name “Email address”, click the label to focus the field, and complete the form using a keyboard and screen reader.

Reference: W3C WAI: labeling controls.

3. SEO: the page title is too generic

Example priority: Medium

Evidence: The source title is <title>Home</title>, while the main heading describes an example store.
Why it matters: The title does not tell readers what the page offers. Google recommends concise titles that describe each page.
Recommended change: Use a title that accurately describes this page, such as Example Store — Products and Customer Enquiries if that matches its actual content.
How to verify: Inspect the rendered title and browser tab, check that it matches the page purpose, and review other indexed pages for distinct descriptive titles. Search-result wording is controlled by the search engine.

Reference: Google Search Central: title links.

4. Performance: image space is not reserved

Example priority: Medium

Evidence: The example image has no width or height, and the supplied source contains no CSS that reserves its aspect ratio.
Why it matters: Without reserved space, surrounding content can move as the image loads. This is a potential layout-shift risk; no CLS value has been measured.
Recommended change: Add the image’s real intrinsic width and height, with responsive CSS such as max-width:100%;height:auto, or reserve the correct aspect ratio in CSS.
How to verify: Check the dimensions against the actual asset. Load the page with an empty cache and a throttled connection, inspect layout shifts, and compare before/after traces under the same conditions.

Reference: web.dev: optimizing cumulative layout shift.

Example source used for this report

This excerpt is displayed as text. The domain is illustrative, and the image and form are not loaded or submitted.

<!doctype html>
<html lang="en">
<head><title>Home</title></head>
<body>
  <h1>Example store</h1>
  <img src="hero.jpg" alt="Products in the example store">
  <form action="http://example.test/contact" method="post">
    <input type="email" name="email">
    <button type="submit">Send enquiry</button>
  </form>
</body>
</html>

Assessment limits

Only the supplied excerpt was considered. There was no live testing of hosting, headers, server-side validation, assistive technology, search indexing or user performance. A source-only example cannot establish the overall security, accessibility or SEO of a website.