Wren Beta — what that means

boldsystems.org

readable

C Acceptable. Readable, but working against you

Loading speed is diagnostic only; it does not affect this grade or search ranking.

SubjectWeightScore
Interruption 35.71% not scored
Readability 28.57% not scored
Accessibility and keyboard 21.43% 75
Stability and weight 14.29% 68

This letter rests on 36% of the grade. The subjects marked “not measured” are left out rather than scored as zero (which would fail a site for something nobody looked at) or as full marks (which would be a claim we have not earned). Readability was measured but is not scored here. We have not measured an article for this site. Homepages, listings and other non-article pages can make our typography measurements reflect navigation rather than prose. The numbers are below; the letter leaves them out until we have measured an article. How this is worked out.

boldsystems.org
Largest paint
1.9s
Paywall
none
Ad requests
0
Tracker requests
2
Page weight
4.6 MB
Readability
18px type · 1.8 line height · 59 characters per line · 7.8:1 contrast (over an image)
Accessibility
2 automated checks failed (2 serious)
Green hosting
not measured
Measured
2026-08-31

Observed interruptions

Ad and tracker counts above are network requests, not counts of visible ads or separate companies. They do not affect the interruption score.

Interruption evidence is incomplete or needs review, so this subject is not scored. Missing evidence is not treated as an interruption-free page.

The type, and who can use it

Measured on 1 rendered page; latest measurement 2026-09-05 — no article measured yet. Every number is a mechanical fact about the page, not a judgment of its design.

WhatMeasuredThe bar
Body type size 18px, 16px at phone width 16px, the browser default
Characters per line 59 45–90
Line height 1.78 1.5 (WCAG 1.4.8)
Text contrast 7.8:1 — over a background image, so not scored 4.5:1 (WCAG AA), 7:1 (AAA)
Text column 44% of the window at least 45%
Reflows at phone width yes WCAG 1.4.10
Dark mode no noted, not scored
Automated accessibility checks 2 automated checks failed (2 serious): link-name, role-img-alt WCAG 2.1 A and AA, via axe-core
Keyboard no trap; focus visible on 100% of stops never trapped, always visible
Structure main landmark, 1 h1, 1 skipped heading level a main landmark, one h1, no skips
Alt text 11% of 9 content images described every content image
Reader mode parses parses (Firefox’s Readability)

Automated accessibility checks catch an estimated 30–40% of real problems, so “no automated violations detected” is a floor, not a certificate. We never say “accessible”. How these are scored.

Measurement dates

Oldest evidence 50 days old. At least one subject is due for rechecking (30 days or older). Dates refer to the evidence, never the card rebuild.

Measurement history

Newest 3 saved observations. Each describes a sampled page at that time; older, failed or held observations do not override the current reviewed card. Raw automated findings may have been superseded by later review or detector replay. No previous grade is inferred.

Read dated observations
  1. — Readability and accessibility observation; prose source p; desktop type 18px; phone overflow not observed
    https://boldsystems.org/
    Evidence source: readability-top5000.jsonl · observation d432eceb4107
  2. — Readability and accessibility observation; measurement failed
    https://boldsystems.org/
    Evidence source: readability-top5000.aborted-desktop-resize.jsonl · observation f962f886446b
  3. — Access observation: penalised; raw automated findings metered paywall; review required
    https://boldsystems.org/
    Evidence source: verdicts-top5000.jsonl · observation d53874b6cce4

How we know

Pages rendered1
Site verdicterrors dropped; majority of remaining; ties to the stricter verdict; active reviewed exclusions override admission
Figures shownnumeric measurements generally use medians; interruption costs, overflow, keyboard traps and accessibility failures retain the strongest observed finding
Cited by122,025 encyclopedia articles
Flaggedat least one render was degraded, so this card is queued for re-measurement

Think this is wrong? It may well be — the measurements cover only a handful of pages. Any reviewed admission decision and its dated evidence are shown above. Re-measurement on request is not built yet, so there is no button here that would do anything. When it exists it will be free and it will be on this page.