What actually fires
Trackers, cookies and third-party calls captured as they leave the page — not guessed from a policy.
Accessibility, UX, conversion, and privacy — each audited with exact instructions for fixing what's broken. Paste a URL. No sign-in. Results in under 30 seconds.
Interact with our website using natural language commands.

The Blind Spot

Nobody emails to say the contrast was too low to read. Nobody files a ticket because the CTA was ambiguous. They just leave - and the analytics call it a bounce.
adults live with a disability that affects how they use the web
of usability problems are invisible to the person who built the page
is all a visitor gives an unclear value proposition before leaving
maximum GDPR penalty for mishandling visitor data
Most tools check one thing. Vicaratva runs accessibility, UX, Conversion, and Privacy against the same page in a single pass - so you see how they interact, not four disconnected reports.
Every issue we find comes back as a card with its severity, which element on the page is causing it, and a suggested fix you can paste straight into your code.
Trackers, cookies and third-party calls captured as they leave the page — not guessed from a policy.
Usability friction and conversion patterns, scored by the revenue they cost you.
Accessibility, privacy, UX and CRO findings merged and ordered by severity.
WCAG violations found in your markup and computed styles, pinned to the element that caused them.

Each finding ships with the corrected snippet and the success criteria it closes.
<input id="url" />
<button class="cta">Scan</button>
<button class="cta" aria-label="Scan URL">
</form>Answers vary by audit type — pick one above and these update to match.
Your page is tested against WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 success criteria (A/AA/AAA best-practice tags) using axe-core — the same engine behind most commercial accessibility scanners. It flags issues like missing alt text, poor color contrast, missing form labels, and improper heading structure.
Automated tools catch roughly 57% of WCAG issues. The remainder — keyboard traps, screen reader announcements, cognitive load, focus order — require manual testing by a human expert. Treat this report as a strong first pass, not a compliance certificate.
Severity reflects impact on people using assistive technology. Critical issues (e.g. missing form labels) can block a task entirely. Serious issues cause major friction. Moderate and Minor issues are usability or best-practice gaps that are still worth fixing.
It maps to WCAG 2.1/2.2, which underlies ADA (US), EN 301 549 (EU), and most accessibility legislation worldwide. Passing this scan reduces legal risk but does not by itself guarantee compliance — manual audits and user testing with assistive tech are still recommended for legal sign-off.
Yes — accessibility reports include a PDF export with full violation details, element selectors, and remediation guidance, branded and ready to share with your dev team or client.
Typically 5–15 seconds depending on page complexity. You see a live progress stream as each WCAG rule runs — no blank spinner.