Accessibilityā€Ž > ā€Ž

Accessibility test report

The initial accessibility tests are underway, and until they are complete this test report remains in draft form. Until then, this page will undergo frequent change! Once complete, this notice will be removed, and a PDF version of the page will also be made available. This test report is based on the template dated May 2018 that was published at: template was cut and pasted into this page, and we are going through the process of adapting it to our needs and incorporating the test results.

1. Executive Summary

This report describes the conformance of the Great Gransden Parish Council website with W3Cā€™s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines(WCAG). The review process is described in Section 5 below and is based on evaluation described in Accessibility Evaluation Resources.

Based on this evaluation, the Great Gransden Parish Council website [meets/ does not meet/ is close to meeting] WCAG 2.1, Conformance Level AA. Detailed review results are available in Section 6 below. Resources for follow-up study are listed in Section 7 below. Feedback on this evaluation is welcome.

Background about Evaluation

Conformance evaluation of web accessibility requires a combination of semi-automated evaluation tools and manual evaluation by an experienced reviewer. The evaluation results in this report are based on evaluation conducted on the following date(s): 31 December 2019, 26-28 January 2020. The website may have changed since that time.

Scope of Review

  • This is a review of the Great Gransden Parish Council ("GGPC") website
    • The purpose of this website is to make available online information about GGPC, including its councillors, the policies for operation that it has adopted, timely announcements about forthcoming meetings, the minutes of past meetings, and other information that GGPC deems of interest to its parishoners.
  • The URL of the website is, with as an alias; the site is implemented using Goggle Classic Sites technology, with the underlying site being
  • The pages reviewed were the home page,, as it is the main point of entry to the site, plus a selection of other pages chosen to be representative.
    • ...
  • URLs excluded from consideration were those containing old posts that had been archived, referenced via
  • The tests were performed on 31/12/2019, 28/01/2020
  • The website is in UK English

4. Reviewer(s)

  • The review was performed by Nigel Day, a member of GGPC, with input from other members of the Parish Council.
  • Contact information for GGPC can be found at, and for the reviewer at
  • The reviewer has worked as a software developer and systems analyst for 35 years. He has developed and maintained web sites for over 20 years. As he has limited specific experience in website accessibility issues, the review should be considered an (extended) basic accessibility check.
  • The reviewer is a native UK English speaker.

5. Review Process

  • Conformance was tested against WCAG 2.1 Level AA.
  • The WAVE tool ( was used to test web pages.
  • Manual tests were performed on a Windows 10 laptop, using both Microsoft Edge and Firefox; on the latter, the Web Developer extension was used to inspect individual elements of web pages.
  • NVDA version 2019.2.1 was used to test that the web pages worked with screen reader software.
  • Microsoft Edge was used to ensure that the text of PDF reports (for example, meeting agendas and minutes) could be selected and read aloud.

6. Results and Recommended Actions

  • [Interpretative summary of review results]
    • [e.g. this website appears to [meet/ not meet/ is close to meeting] WCAG 2.1 A, AA, AAA]
    • [accessibility features in which this site is strong include _______]
    • [recommended priorities for addressing inaccessible features of site]
  • [Detailed results, structured according to WCAG 2.1]
    • [include links to WCAG 2.1 success criteria and techniques for all non-conformant items]
    • [attach or link to specific reports in appendices, e.g. output of validators and evaluation tools]
    • [provide recommendations for addressing non-conformant checkpoints]
  • [Describe or point to a suggested program of on-going monitoring of website accessibility, re-evaluation of authoring tools, etc.]

7. References

8. Appendices

  • [Attach detailed validator and evaluation tool reports here]