accessandtime.com website review

22 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (988 KiB).

14 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 3.0 s.

About 185 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 1.3 s faster on a phone.

Your mobile performance score is 50. Pages that score under 90 lose visitors before the first paint.

4 images could be 171 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen. Google estimates it would make the page about 700 ms faster on a phone.

26 KiB could be saved by minifying JavaScript.

35 KiB could be saved by minifying CSS.

About 53 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 150 ms faster on a phone.

Web fonts hide text while they load. Setting font-display: swap shows text immediately (about 50 ms).

The HTML itself could arrive sooner: redirects, a slow server response or missing compression delay everything after it.

Critical files load one after another instead of in parallel (3 chains). Preconnecting to key origins and preloading the hero image shortens the chain.

Scripts make the browser recalculate the layout repeatedly while the page loads, which wastes processor time on phones.

1 third-party service load with your homepage (Google Fonts), adding 30 KiB and 0 ms of main-thread time.

Your largest element takes 6.5 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the image.

The layout shifts by 0.377 while loading, so content jumps under the reader's thumb. Good is under 0.1.

The first text or image appears after 3.7 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.

The page becomes fully interactive after 6.5 s. Good is under 3.8 s.

Visually, the page fills in at 4.1 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.

4 images have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.

Chrome's UX Report (opens in a new tab) has too little real-visitor traffic for this site, so the figures here are lab measurements from Google's test phone on a throttled 4G connection.

5 images (522 KiB) are JPEG, PNG or GIF. The same pictures as WebP or AVIF are usually much smaller at the same quality, and every current browser shows them.

2 images further down the page (84 KiB) download before anyone scrolls to them. Adding loading="lazy" lets the first screen load first.

By the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.28 g of CO₂e: 34.1 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.

Images must have alternative text: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated critical by axe-core.

1 dropdown has no label.

6 text elements don't have enough contrast against the background to read easily, especially outdoors on a phone.

All page content should be contained by landmarks: 3 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.

The page has no <main> landmark, so screen-reader users cannot jump straight to the content.

The viewport tag blocks pinch-zoom, which low-vision visitors rely on.

1 form field has no label, so screen readers announce an empty box and autofill guesses.

Your title is 263 characters, so Google will cut it off around 60: “Access and Time Control Ltd Ireland | Software as a Service | SaaS | Hosted time and atte…”.

No structured data (JSON-LD), so Google can't show rich results such as your logo, ratings or FAQs.

No canonical URL, so duplicate versions of the homepage (with or without www, with tracking parameters) can split ranking signals.

Your meta description is 175 characters; Google truncates after about 160, so the end of your pitch is cut.

No Open Graph image (also missing: og:title, og:description), so links shared on LinkedIn, Slack or Facebook show no preview picture.

No XML sitemap at http://accessandtime.com/sitemap.xml, so Google discovers your pages only by following links.

There is no robots.txt at accessandtime.com/robots.txt, the first file search crawlers ask for.

No favicon is declared in the HTML, so browser tabs and Google's mobile results may show a generic icon.

5 links use generic text like “click here” or “learn more”, which tells Google nothing about the page behind them.

No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is incomplete here.

The homepage links to 18 pages on accessandtime.com and 5 external pages.

There is no Organization (or LocalBusiness) JSON-LD, so search engines and AI assistants have no machine-readable facts about who runs the site: its name, logo, profiles and contact details.

There is no /llms.txt, a short Markdown guide to your key pages for AI tools (llmstxt.org). It is optional and few AI tools read it yet, so treat it as a cheap extra.

/terminals.html and /services.html all use the title “Services”. Search engines can't tell which page to show for a search, so each competes with the others.

/software.html, /terminals.html, /services.html and /about.html use the same meta description. A description written for each page earns more clicks.

/contact.html has under 150 words in the HTML. Thin pages rarely rank; if the text loads with JavaScript, crawlers that don't run it see even less.

We fetched 5 pages linked from your homepage and read each the way a search engine does.

3 of 7 tappable elements near the top of the page are smaller than 24 px, hard to hit with a thumb.

1 error was logged to the browser console while the page loaded, for example “Failed to load resource: the server responded with a status of 404 (Not Found)”.

Does not redirect HTTP traffic to HTTPS.

Your homepage is served without HTTPS, so browsers mark it “Not secure” and some refuse forms on it.

1 link from your homepage to your own site is broken, for example http://accessandtime.com/Brochures/GDPR.pdf (404).

http://accessandtime.com does not redirect to https, so some visitors land on the insecure version.

There is no /.well-known/security.txt telling researchers how to report a security problem to you.

accessandtime.com has no CAA record, so any certificate authority may issue a certificate for it. A CAA record naming your provider (for example letsencrypt.org) closes that door.

accessandtime.com's DNS answers are not signed. DNSSEC stops attackers forging them to send visitors or email elsewhere; most registrars switch it on in a click, though most sites still run without it.

On a phone, there is no call to action on the first screen: visitors have to scroll to find out what to do next.

No testimonials, customer logos, ratings or customer counts on the homepage: nothing tells a new visitor that others already trust you.

No analytics or tag manager detected in the HTML, so you can't measure whether any of these fixes work.

The homepage has only about 210 words of visible text; thin pages give Google and first-time buyers little to go on.

There is no form on the homepage, so every lead has to click through to another page first.

No guarantee or risk reducer (money-back, free trial, no credit card) is mentioned, which is often what tips a hesitant visitor.

accessandtime.com has no DMARC record, so nothing tells receivers what to do with mail that fails SPF or DKIM. Gmail and Yahoo require DMARC from bulk senders.

We found no DKIM key on the selectors the big email providers use. If you send through one of them, turning on DKIM signing improves delivery.

Email authentication: SPF record 25 points, plus 15 when it ends in -all (10 for ~all); DMARC record 25, plus 25 for a reject policy (15 for quarantine); a DKIM key on a common selector 10.

Opening the homepage sets 3 cookies (measured from a US location before any click).

No known cookie consent tool loads with the page. Some sites build their own banner, and some only show one to visitors from the EU.

Loading the homepage contacts 4 hosts run by other companies (fonts, scripts, analytics, ads), each of which sees the visitor's IP address.