gb.nl
Scanned 13 July 2026 against WCAG 2.2 AA with axe-core. 27 issues found.
gb.nl fails many automated WCAG 2.2 AA checks, scoring 58/100 (grade D).
What is failing on gb.nl
One row per failing rule, worst first. Each links to a guide with the corrected markup.
Elements must meet minimum color contrast ratio thresholds
Ensure the contrast between foreground and background colors meets WCAG 2 AA minimum contrast ratio thresholds
Form elements should have a visible label
Ensure that every form element has a visible label and is not solely labeled using hidden labels, or the title or aria-describedby attributes
label-title-only
Links must have discernible text
Ensure links have discernible text
Document should have one main landmark
Ensure the document has a main landmark
landmark-one-main
How to fix it
All page content should be contained by landmarks
Ensure all page content is contained by landmarks
region
How to fix it
Alternative text of images should not be repeated as text
Ensure image alternative is not repeated as text
image-redundant-alt
How this report was produced
Conforma opened gb.nl in a real Chromium browser, waited for the page to finish rendering, and ran axe-core against the resulting DOM. Testing the rendered page rather than the source HTML matters: issues introduced by JavaScript, such as a modal that traps focus or a menu built at runtime, only exist after render.
The rules map to WCAG 2.2 level AA, the conformance level referenced by EN 301 549 and by the European Accessibility Act. Automated testing catches roughly one third of WCAG success criteria: the machine-checkable ones such as colour contrast, missing alternative text, unlabelled form fields and broken heading order. The remaining two thirds, including whether alt text is accurate and whether a flow can be completed with a screen reader, need a person.
What the European Accessibility Act requires
Since 28 June 2025 the European Accessibility Act applies to most consumer-facing digital services sold in the EU: e-commerce, banking, transport, e-books and telecoms. It expects conformance with EN 301 549, which points at WCAG 2.2 AA, plus an accessibility statement describing the current state. Every issue listed above is one an enforcement body or a complainant can reproduce in a browser in seconds. Read what the Act requires, sector by sector.
Questions about this report
What does a score of 58 mean for gb.nl?
It means gb.nl fails many automated WCAG 2.2 AA checks. The score starts at 100 and subtracts points for each distinct failing rule, weighted by severity, so ten missing alt attributes cost the same as one because they share a single fix.
Does this prove the site is or is not legally compliant?
No. Automated testing reliably catches roughly a third of WCAG success criteria: the machine-checkable ones such as contrast, missing alt text and unlabelled form fields. A clean automated report is a good sign, not a conformance statement. Full conformance under the European Accessibility Act needs a manual audit alongside it.
How was this report produced?
Conforma loaded the page in a real Chromium browser and ran axe-core against it, testing the rendered DOM rather than the source HTML. The rules map to WCAG 2.2 level AA, the standard EN 301 549 and the European Accessibility Act point to.
This is my website. Can I have this page removed?
Yes. Use the removal link at the bottom of this page and the report comes down immediately, no account needed.
Re-scan gb.nl, or track it over time
This report is a single page at a single moment. A free account crawls the whole site, re-scans it on a schedule and emails you when a deploy breaks something.