E-Commerce Website Audit Framework
TL;DR #
This framework provides a comprehensive audit method for e-commerce websites. It covers SEO, performance, accessibility, front-end code, architecture, security, integrations, documentation, and operations. Each section includes sample do’s and don’ts, recommended tools, and evaluation criteria. These examples are illustrative only; in real audits, there are many more program-, client-, and project-specific checks. Deliverables include an executive summary, a detailed findings report, and a scorecard (1–5 rating) to prioritize fixes.
1. SEO & Online Visibility #
What to check: On-page optimization, structured data, crawlability, and search performance.
✅ Do
- Use descriptive page titles & unique meta descriptions.
- Add structured data (schema.org for products, reviews, breadcrumbs).
- Submit XML sitemaps to Google Search Console.
❌ Don’t
- Stuff keywords unnaturally.
- Use duplicate content across product pages.
- Block important content with robots.txt.
SEO Tools #
- Browser: Lighthouse SEO Audit - Documentation
- SaaS: SEMrush - Docs, Ahrefs - Academy, Screaming Frog - User Guide
- Agentic: Surfer SEO - Knowledge Base for content optimization
2. Performance & Scalability #
What to check: Speed, resource usage, and ability to handle growth.
✅ Do
- Optimize images (WebP/AVIF, responsive sizes).
- Minify and bundle JS/CSS carefully.
- Use a CDN for global delivery.
❌ Don’t
- Load blocking scripts in
<head>. - Ignore mobile performance (LCP > 2.5s is bad).
- Rely only on vertical scaling instead of elasticity.
Performance Tools #
- Browser: Chrome DevTools - Performance tab guide
- SaaS: WebPageTest - Documentation, GTmetrix - Help Center, SpeedCurve - Docs
- CI/CD: Lighthouse CI - Getting Started, k6 - Documentation for load testing
3. Accessibility #
What to check: Compliance with WCAG 2.1+ and real-world usability.
✅ Do
- Provide alt text for all images.
- Ensure sufficient color contrast (use a contrast checker).
- Make all functionality accessible via keyboard.
❌ Don’t
- Convey information only by color.
- Hide focus outlines.
- Skip ARIA roles where needed.
Accessibility Tools #
- Browser: axe DevTools - User Guide, WAVE - Documentation, Lighthouse Accessibility Audit - Accessibility docs
- Automated: Pa11y CI - Usage Guide
- Manual: Screen readers (NVDA - User Guide, JAWS - Documentation, VoiceOver - User Guide)
Reference: Publicis Sapient CoE Accessibility in Canada – “Accessibility for All” initiative
4. Front-End Code Quality #
What to check: Clean, maintainable, and performant code.
✅ Do
- Write semantic HTML (
<button>, not<div onclick>). - Use CSS naming conventions (e.g. BEM).
- Split JS bundles and lazy load non-critical code.
❌ Don’t
- Mix styling inline (
style=""). - Abuse
!importantin CSS. - Depend on large frameworks for trivial functionality.
Quality Tools #
- Static Analysis: ESLint - Documentation, Stylelint - User Guide
- Browser: Coverage tab in DevTools (unused CSS/JS)
- CI/CD: SonarQube - Documentation for code quality
5. Software Architecture #
What to check: Scalability, modularity, and resilience.
✅ Do
- Apply Domain-Driven Design for modularity.
- Version APIs and document them (Swagger, OpenAPI).
- Add observability (structured logging, distributed tracing).
❌ Don’t
- Couple business logic tightly with UI.
- Skip caching strategies (API + DB).
- Forget failure recovery (retry, circuit breaker).
Architecture Tools #
- Code Level: Architecture Decision Records (ADR) - Templates, PlantUML - Language Reference Guide diagrams
- Monitoring: Datadog - Documentation, New Relic - Docs, OpenTelemetry - Documentation
- Testing: Postman - Learning Center/Newman - CLI docs for APIs
6. Security #
What to check: Protect against vulnerabilities, compliance with standards.
✅ Do
- Use HTTPS everywhere (HSTS enabled).
- Hash and salt passwords (bcrypt, Argon2).
- Apply least privilege to user roles.
❌ Don’t
- Store secrets in code.
- Trust client-side validation alone.
- Disable security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options).
Security Tools #
- Browser: Security tab in Chrome DevTools
- Code Level: OWASP Dependency-Check - Documentation, Snyk - Documentation
- SaaS: Burp Suite - Documentation, OWASP ZAP - User Guide (DAST scans)
7. Integrations & APIs #
What to check: Reliability and compliance of third-party systems.
✅ Do
- Implement retry & backoff strategies.
- Secure APIs with OAuth2/JWT.
- Use monitoring for payment/logistics APIs.
❌ Don’t
- Hardcode API keys.
- Skip sandbox testing before production release.
- Assume vendor APIs never change.
Integrations Tools #
- Postman - Documentation, Insomnia - Documentation (manual testing)
- Pact - Documentation (contract testing)
- WireMock - Documentation (API mocking)
8. Documentation & Governance #
What to check: Knowledge sharing, standards, and process.
✅ Do
- Maintain a living API spec.
- Document architecture decisions.
- Include audit reports with scoring and remediation.
❌ Don’t
- Let docs go stale.
- Hide findings in long PDFs with no clear action plan.
- Forget to track NFRs in backlog.
Documentation Tools #
- Confluence - Documentation, Notion - Help Center, or GitHub Wiki - About wikis
- ADR templates - Examples (Architectural Decision Records)
- Scorecards & dashboards (Grafana - Documentation)
9. Processes & Operations #
What to check: Deployment, monitoring, and resilience.
✅ Do
- Automate testing in CI/CD (unit, integration, regression).
- Add DevSecOps scanning to the pipeline.
- Define SLAs and measure them with monitoring.
❌ Don’t
- Deploy directly to production without review.
- Ignore alert fatigue (too many false alarms).
- Skip cost monitoring for cloud services.
Process Tools #
- CI/CD: GitHub Actions - Documentation, GitLab CI - CI/CD Guide, Jenkins - Documentation
- Observability: Prometheus - Documentation + Grafana - Docs, ELK Stack - Documentation
- Incident Mgmt: PagerDuty - Documentation, Opsgenie - Documentation
Deliverables of the Audit #
- Executive Summary for stakeholders
- Detailed findings with “Do/Don’t” recommendations
- Scorecards for SEO, performance, accessibility, security, etc.
- Actionable roadmap with priorities (Quick Wins vs. Long-Term Fixes)
Example Deliverables #
Executive Summary (Example) #
Project: Audit of “ShopNow E-Commerce” Date: September 2025
The audit identified several strengths in the current platform, including a scalable cloud architecture and good API documentation. However, there are significant gaps in accessibility, performance, and security.
- Accessibility: The site does not meet WCAG 2.1 AA. Missing alt text, poor contrast, and keyboard traps were found. This limits usability for a portion of users and poses compliance risks.
- Performance: Load times on mobile devices are slow (LCP ~4.2s). Large unoptimized images and render-blocking scripts are the main issues.
- Security: Outdated libraries with known vulnerabilities were detected. No CSP headers are set, leaving the site vulnerable to XSS attacks.
- SEO: Overall strong, but duplicate meta descriptions and missing structured data for products reduce search visibility.
Recommended Roadmap:
- Quick Wins (0–3 months): Fix image optimization, apply security headers, add alt text.
- Mid-Term (3–6 months): Upgrade dependency management, add Lighthouse CI in pipeline, implement automated accessibility checks.
- Long-Term (6+ months): Redesign color palette for accessibility, adopt service mesh for API resilience, build observability dashboards.
Scorecard (Example, 1–5 Rating) #
| Category | Rating (1–5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| SEO | 3 | Indexing is fine, but missing structured data and duplicate metas. |
| Performance | 2 | Mobile performance weak (LCP > 4s), no CDN usage. |
| Accessibility | 1 | WCAG compliance poor, several critical blockers. |
| Frontend Code | 3 | Semantics okay, but CSS unstructured, JS bundles too large. |
| Architecture | 4 | Modular and scalable, but observability limited. |
| Security | 2 | Outdated libs, missing CSP and secure headers. |
| Integrations | 4 | APIs well documented, retry logic missing in payments. |
| Documentation | 3 | Good developer docs, but no audit or ADRs kept updated. |
| Processes/Ops | 4 | CI/CD pipeline in place, but no DevSecOps or automated scans. |
Legend:
- 1 = Critical (high risk, urgent fix needed)
- 2 = Weak (many gaps, below industry standard)
- 3 = Acceptable (meets minimum expectations, needs improvements)
- 4 = Strong (good practice, minor improvements possible)
- 5 = Excellent (industry leading, no action needed)