web accessibility data top100

saturn notebook · generated 2026-05-01 Report Notebook

Overview

Source: /tmp/saturn-uploads/f55be675ada5/web_accessibility_data_top100.csv

Saturn profiled 92 rows across 6 columns. The stats below are deterministic and machine-readable; the prose is a language-model interpretation of those stats (opt-in, added after the fact, never sees raw rows).

[2]:

!pip install saturn-dissect
import subprocess
subprocess.run([
    "saturn", "analyze", "/tmp/saturn-uploads/f55be675ada5/web_accessibility_data_top100.csv",
    "--findings", "web_accessibility_data_top100.json",
    "--llm", "anthropic:claude-opus-4-7",
])

Summary confidence: high

This dataset profiles 92 popular websites with accessibility metrics, including error counts, error density, and two ranking signals (popularity and wave rank). The error metrics are highly skewed: errors range from 0 to 364 with a median of just 5, and 8 sites (about 10%) qualify as outliers — worth flagging as the worst offenders. The notes field is the richest qualitative signal, with 'Low contrast text' (12 sites) and 'Missing form input label' (9 sites) dominating the issue mix. Popularity_rank is evenly spread across 1–100, so it works well as a control axis when comparing error patterns across the popularity spectrum.

citing: errors · error_density · notes · popularity_rank · wave_rank

Out[4]:

saturn.schema() · 6 columns

column	kind	n	null%	unique	alerts
domain	categorical	92	0.0%	92	long_tail
wave_rank	numeric	92	9.8%	83
popularity_rank	numeric	92	9.8%	82
errors	numeric	92	9.8%	36	high_skew outliers
error_density	numeric	92	9.8%	64	high_skew outliers
notes	categorical	92	0.0%	38	long_tail

Fig 1.

errors · Most sites have few errors but a long right tail reaches 364 — look for the outlier sites driving the mean above the median.

Show data table

Histogram bins for errors (median: 5.0).
bin	count
0 – 40.44	70
40.44 – 80.89	7
80.89 – 121.3	1
121.3 – 161.8	2
161.8 – 202.2	0
202.2 – 242.7	2
242.7 – 283.1	0
283.1 – 323.6	0
323.6 – 364	1

Fig 2.

error_density · Error density is similarly skewed; check whether the same sites top both error count and density.

Show data table

Histogram bins for error_density (median: 0.0057).
bin	count
0 – 0.03367	65
0.03367 – 0.06733	10
0.06733 – 0.101	2
0.101 – 0.1347	2
0.1347 – 0.1683	0
0.1683 – 0.202	1
0.202 – 0.2357	2
0.2357 – 0.2693	0
0.2693 – 0.303	1

Fig 3.

notes · See which accessibility issues recur most often — low contrast text and missing labels lead by a clear margin.

Show data table

Top values for notes (20 unique shown, of 38 total).
value	count	share
Low contrast text	12	13.0%
Missing form input label	9	9.8%
Low contrast text, missing alt text	9	9.8%
Missing alt text	5	5.4%
Asia-based	5	5.4%
No detected errors	5	5.4%
Low contrast text, empty link	4	4.3%
Low contrast text, missing alt text, empty link, empty button	4	4.3%
No data	3	3.3%
Low contrast text, missing alt text, missing labels	3	3.3%
Low contrast text, missing alt text, empty button	3	3.3%
Missing document language	2	2.2%
Missing alt text, missing document language	2	2.2%
Missing form input label, empty button	2	2.2%
Low contrast text, missing alt text, empty link, missing form labels, empty button	1	1.1%
Low contrast text, missing alt text, empty links	1	1.1%
Missing alt text, missing form labels, empty buttons	1	1.1%
Missing form input label, missing document language	1	1.1%
Low contrast text, missing alt text, missing language	1	1.1%
Missing alt text, missing form labels	1	1.1%

Fig 4.

popularity_rank · Popularity is roughly uniform across 1–100, confirming the sample spans the full top-100 range.

Show data table

Histogram bins for popularity_rank (median: 52.0).
bin	count
1 – 12	11
12 – 23	5
23 – 34	10
34 – 45	10
45 – 56	9
56 – 67	9
67 – 78	9
78 – 89	9
89 – 100	11

Fig 5.

wave_rank · Wave rank spans three orders of magnitude with a mild right skew — useful for segmenting sites by traffic tier.

Show data table

Histogram bins for wave_rank (median: 203569.0).
bin	count
1183 – 1.112e+05	27
1.112e+05 – 2.212e+05	17
2.212e+05 – 3.312e+05	10
3.312e+05 – 4.411e+05	5
4.411e+05 – 5.511e+05	7
5.511e+05 – 6.611e+05	6
6.611e+05 – 7.711e+05	2
7.711e+05 – 8.811e+05	4
8.811e+05 – 9.911e+05	5

Fig 6.

Per-column null rate across the corpus. Columns are ordered by input position.

Show data table

Per-column null rate across the corpus.
column	kind	null %
domain	categorical	0.0%
wave_rank	numeric	9.8%
popularity_rank	numeric	9.8%
errors	numeric	9.8%
error_density	numeric	9.8%
notes	categorical	0.0%

Fig 7.

Pearson correlation across numeric columns (sampled, bounded).

Show data table

Pearson correlation across 4 numeric columns (values clipped to 2 decimals).
	wave_rank	popularity_rank	errors	error_density
wave_rank	+1.00	+0.01	+0.77	+0.52
popularity_rank	+0.01	+1.00	+0.06	-0.09
errors	+0.77	+0.06	+1.00	+0.28
error_density	+0.52	-0.09	+0.28	+1.00

domain categorical identifier

This column holds web domain names (e.g., google.com, youtube.com, wikipedia.org), with one row per domain. Every one of the 92 values is unique (n_unique equals n, entropy_ratio = 1.0, top_rate ≈ 0.0109), so it functions as a row identifier rather than a categorical feature. No nulls are present, but the long_tail alert reflects the fully flat distribution.

Treatment: Use as a row key or join key; do not one-hot encode.

anthropic:claude-opus-4-7 · confidence high

Out[13]:

saturn.columns["domain"].stats

stat	value
n	92
nulls	0 (0.0%)
unique	92
top_value	google.com
top_rate	0.01087
cardinality	92
entropy	6.524
entropy_ratio	1
alert: long_tail	92 singleton categories

Fig 8.

Top values for domain.

Show data table

Top values for domain (20 unique shown, of 92 total).
value	count	share
google.com	1	1.1%
youtube.com	1	1.1%
facebook.com	1	1.1%
wikipedia.org	1	1.1%
instagram.com	1	1.1%
bing.com	1	1.1%
reddit.com	1	1.1%
x.com	1	1.1%
chatgpt.com	1	1.1%
yandex.ru	1	1.1%
whatsapp.com	1	1.1%
amazon.com	1	1.1%
yahoo.com	1	1.1%
weather.com	1	1.1%
duckduckgo.com	1	1.1%
microsoftonline.com	1	1.1%
twitch.tv	1	1.1%
linkedin.com	1	1.1%
live.com	1	1.1%
fandom.com	1	1.1%

wave_rank numeric feature

A numeric ranking-style field spanning 1,183 to 991,094 with mean 301,136 and median 203,569, suggesting position or score values rather than counts. The distribution is right-skewed (skew 0.96) with a wide IQR of 395,414, but no outliers were flagged. Notably, 9.78% of values are null and only 83 of 92 rows are unique, so there are a few repeated ranks.

Treatment: Impute or flag the ~10% nulls and consider a log or rank transform before modelling given the right skew.

anthropic:claude-opus-4-7 · confidence medium

Out[16]:

saturn.columns["wave_rank"].stats

stat	value
n	92
nulls	9 (9.8%)
unique	83
min	1,183
max	991,094
mean	3.011e+05
median	203,569
std	2.746e+05
q1	8.221e+04
q3	477,628
iqr	3.954e+05
skew	0.9633
kurtosis	-0.1876
n_outliers	0
outlier_rate	0
zero_rate	0

Fig 9.

Distribution of wave_rank. Vertical dash marks the median.

Show data table

Histogram bins for wave_rank (median: 203569.0).
bin	count
1183 – 1.112e+05	27
1.112e+05 – 2.212e+05	17
2.212e+05 – 3.312e+05	10
3.312e+05 – 4.411e+05	5
4.411e+05 – 5.511e+05	7
5.511e+05 – 6.611e+05	6
6.611e+05 – 7.711e+05	2
7.711e+05 – 8.811e+05	4
8.811e+05 – 9.911e+05	5

popularity_rank numeric feature

Almost certainly a 1-to-100 popularity ranking, with min 1.0, max 100.0, and a near-symmetric distribution (mean 51.23, median 52.0, skew -0.05). The spread is essentially uniform across the range (std 29.39, IQR 49.0, kurtosis -1.19, no outliers), which is consistent with rank data rather than a measured score. Note 9.78% of rows are null and 82 unique values across 92 rows means a handful of ties or repeats.

Treatment: Impute or flag the ~10% nulls; treat as ordinal and avoid log transforms given the uniform 1-100 spread.

anthropic:claude-opus-4-7 · confidence high

Out[19]:

saturn.columns["popularity_rank"].stats

stat	value
n	92
nulls	9 (9.8%)
unique	82
min	1
max	100
mean	51.23
median	52
std	29.39
q1	27.5
q3	76.5
iqr	49
skew	-0.05046
kurtosis	-1.192
n_outliers	0
outlier_rate	0
zero_rate	0

Fig 10.

Distribution of popularity_rank. Vertical dash marks the median.

Show data table

Histogram bins for popularity_rank (median: 52.0).
bin	count
1 – 12	11
12 – 23	5
23 – 34	10
34 – 45	10
45 – 56	9
56 – 67	9
67 – 78	9
78 – 89	9
89 – 100	11

errors numeric feature

Numeric counter of errors per record, ranging from 0 to 364 with a median of just 5 but a mean of 27.17 — a classic long-tail count. Distribution is severely right-skewed (skew 3.80, kurtosis 16.12) with 8 outliers (9.6% of values) and a std of 57.20 dwarfing the IQR of 24.5. Note also a 9.78% null rate and 6.02% exact zeros, so missingness and zero-inflation both need handling.

Treatment: Impute nulls and apply a log1p transform before modelling to tame the heavy right tail.

anthropic:claude-opus-4-7 · confidence high

Out[22]:

saturn.columns["errors"].stats

stat	value
n	92
nulls	9 (9.8%)
unique	36
min	0
max	364
mean	27.17
median	5
std	57.2
q1	2
q3	26.5
iqr	24.5
skew	3.803
kurtosis	16.12
n_outliers	8
outlier_rate	0.09639
zero_rate	0.06024
alert: high_skew	skew=+3.80
alert: outliers	9.6% rows beyond 1.5 IQR

Fig 11.

Distribution of errors. Vertical dash marks the median.

Show data table

Histogram bins for errors (median: 5.0).
bin	count
0 – 40.44	70
40.44 – 80.89	7
80.89 – 121.3	1
121.3 – 161.8	2
161.8 – 202.2	0
202.2 – 242.7	2
242.7 – 283.1	0
283.1 – 323.6	0
323.6 – 364	1

error_density numeric feature

Likely a per-record error density (errors per unit), bounded at 0 with a long right tail: median 0.0057 vs mean 0.0272 and max 0.303, with skew 3.23 and kurtosis 10.95. Roughly 9.6% of values are flagged outliers, 6% are exactly zero, and 9.8% are null, so a small set of high-error records dominates the distribution.

Treatment: Log1p- or winsorise before modelling, and impute or flag the ~10% nulls.

anthropic:claude-opus-4-7 · confidence high

Out[25]:

saturn.columns["error_density"].stats

stat	value
n	92
nulls	9 (9.8%)
unique	64
min	0
max	0.303
mean	0.02725
median	0.0057
std	0.05376
q1	0.0025
q3	0.02545
iqr	0.02295
skew	3.229
kurtosis	10.95
n_outliers	8
outlier_rate	0.09639
zero_rate	0.06024
alert: high_skew	skew=+3.23
alert: outliers	9.6% rows beyond 1.5 IQR

Fig 12.

Distribution of error_density. Vertical dash marks the median.

Show data table

Histogram bins for error_density (median: 0.0057).
bin	count
0 – 0.03367	65
0.03367 – 0.06733	10
0.06733 – 0.101	2
0.101 – 0.1347	2
0.1347 – 0.1683	0
0.1683 – 0.202	1
0.202 – 0.2357	2
0.2357 – 0.2693	0
0.2693 – 0.303	1

notes categorical free_text

Free-form QA notes describing accessibility issues found on items, dominated by recurring phrases like "Low contrast text" (12/92) and "Missing form input label" (9/92). High entropy ratio (0.89) and 38 unique values across only 92 rows indicate a long tail of compound descriptions (e.g., "Low contrast text, missing alt text, empty link, empty button"). Notable signals include sentinel-like entries "No detected errors" and "No data", plus an off-topic "Asia-based" tag that suggests inconsistent note conventions.

Treatment: Split on commas into multi-label issue tags before aggregating; isolate sentinel values like "No data".

anthropic:claude-opus-4-7 · confidence high

Out[28]:

saturn.columns["notes"].stats

stat	value
n	92
nulls	0 (0.0%)
unique	38
top_value	Low contrast text
top_rate	0.1304
cardinality	38
entropy	4.663
entropy_ratio	0.8885
alert: long_tail	24 singleton categories

Fig 13.

Top values for notes.

Show data table

Top values for notes (20 unique shown, of 38 total).
value	count	share
Low contrast text	12	13.0%
Missing form input label	9	9.8%
Low contrast text, missing alt text	9	9.8%
Missing alt text	5	5.4%
Asia-based	5	5.4%
No detected errors	5	5.4%
Low contrast text, empty link	4	4.3%
Low contrast text, missing alt text, empty link, empty button	4	4.3%
No data	3	3.3%
Low contrast text, missing alt text, missing labels	3	3.3%
Low contrast text, missing alt text, empty button	3	3.3%
Missing document language	2	2.2%
Missing alt text, missing document language	2	2.2%
Missing form input label, empty button	2	2.2%
Low contrast text, missing alt text, empty link, missing form labels, empty button	1	1.1%
Low contrast text, missing alt text, empty links	1	1.1%
Missing alt text, missing form labels, empty buttons	1	1.1%
Missing form input label, missing document language	1	1.1%
Low contrast text, missing alt text, missing language	1	1.1%
Missing alt text, missing form labels	1	1.1%

How to cite

click to copy

BibTeX

@misc{saturn-web-accessibility-data-top100-2026,
  author       = {Steuber, Luke},
  title        = {Saturn reading: web accessibility data top100},
  year         ={2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://dr.eamer.dev/saturn/view/web_accessibility_data_top100}},
  note         = {Profiled with saturn-dissect v0.2.0, prompt saturn-insight-v2, model anthropic:claude-opus-4-7},
}

APA

Steuber, L. (2026). Saturn reading: web accessibility data top100. Source: /tmp/saturn-uploads/f55be675ada5/web_accessibility_data_top100.csv. Profiled with saturn-dissect v0.2.0 (saturn-insight-v2, anthropic:claude-opus-4-7). Retrieved from https://dr.eamer.dev/saturn/view/web_accessibility_data_top100