Work / Product UX/UI / GMF Reformas · Digital audit
Project 06 of 28 in the archive 06 of 09 in Product design UX/UI See the whole discipline ↗
(00) — The thesis
Google rating across 33 reviews: the highest in the municipality
Google Business Profile · August 2026Calls to action in the entire website
Analysis of all 4 pagesOf the enquiries generated can be measured today
Form inside an external iframeConversion features, against 26/28 for the local digital leader
Digital maturity matrixEvery claim carries its source. What was verified against the HTML and the content is stated as a closed finding; what could not be measured without tools or client data is flagged as verify. Not a single improvement percentage is promised: with no baseline —the site measures nothing today— any figure would be invented.
GMF Reformas has the best verified reputation in Aranjuez and the weakest digital presence in its market. The site works as a static corporate brochure, not as a lead-generating asset: it contains no action button, no social proof and no legal page.
And it is built on a platform —Google Sites— that makes measuring anything impossible. The ceiling is therefore not in rewriting a few lines: it is in rethinking the site as a machine for generating quotes.
Across the whole site there is not a single button, action link or clickable phone number outside the contact page. A convinced user needs five or six deliberate actions to do something that should take one.
The logo links to an about page that acts as the home. A visitor landing there cannot see what the firm does, where, why choose it, or what to do next.
The 5.0 rating across 33 reviews —the best score in the local market— appears nowhere on the site. The volume leader has 4.2 across 364 reviews, and does show them.
The only form is a Google Form embedded in an external iframe: the submission happens off-domain and the conversion cannot be recorded. The firm does not know how many enquiries its site generates.
Google Sites does not allow code in the document head: no Tag Manager, no Clarity, no pixels, no behavioural tooling at all. Migration stops being an aesthetic preference and becomes a prerequisite.
| Company | Public reputation | Digital presence |
|---|---|---|
| GMF Reformas | 5.0 ★ · 33 reviews — the best in the panel | Absent: 1 of 28 elements |
| RMS Proyectos (Aranjuez) | No public ratings | Market benchmark: 26 of 28 |
| MARSANVI (Aranjuez) | 4.2 ★ · 364 reviews | Competent: 16 of 28 |
GMF owns the asset that cannot be bought and lacks the one that can. An excellent website is acquired in six weeks with a budget; a 5.0 rating across 33 reviews is built over years of jobs delivered well and is not for sale. The pending work is not a digital transformation: it is building the minimum shopfront that lets an existing reputation do the selling.
71.7 % of home-renovation customers arrive through a recommendation and only 20 % search exclusively online. That changes what the website is for: it is not primarily an acquisition channel, it is a verification channel. The real journey is not «I search Google and find GMF» but «someone recommends GMF and I look up the name to check they are trustworthy». An abandoned-looking site does not cost the customers who never found it: it costs the ones who already came recommended and cooled off on seeing it. That is the most expensive leak, and the easiest to close.
Methodological transparency is part of the deliverable. A report that does not say where its claims come from cannot be argued with, and therefore cannot be used to decide.
Whatever could not be measured is flagged inside the report itself rather than presented as certainty.
| Block | Material analysed | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| CRO & UX audit | «About us», «Contact», «Specialities» and «Quality guarantee»: content, structure, navigation and copy | Direct analysis of the site |
| Benchmarking | 16 firms in the southern corridor of Madrid; 3 competitor sites in depth; composition of the search results | Public Google Business Profiles; competitor websites |
| Insights | National sector data, corpus of public reviews for GMF and nine competitors, structure of search demand | Radar Reforma (Andimac / Ascer / GfK, 2025); Spanish Renovation Study 2026 (384 responses) |
| Accessibility | Semantic structure, alternative text, heading hierarchy, language and interactive elements | WCAG 2.1 under EN 301 549; Spanish Law 11/2023 and RD 193/2023 |
| Not verified | Verification tool |
|---|---|
| Real speed metrics (LCP, INP, CLS) | PageSpeed Insights + CrUX report |
| Exact contrast ratios and font sizes | axe DevTools or WAVE |
| Keyboard navigation and screen-reader behaviour | Manual protocol in annex A |
Whether the phone numbers are working tel: links | Test on a real mobile device |
| Number of fields in the embedded form | Independent audit of the Google Form |
| Competitors' traffic and ad spend | Not public data |
The headline on the entry page is «About us», followed by a redundant second headline, «Our company». A visitor landing there gets no answer to any of the four questions they need to resolve in five seconds: what is done, where, why this firm and what to do now.
The copy is grammatically correct, competent and commercially inert. It is written from the inside out and contains no verifiable point of difference.
| In favour | Against |
|---|---|
| A real, verifiable track record since 1998 (27 years), mentioned in passing inside a subordinate clause | Unmistakable free-template look: the footer literally reads «Google Sites · Report abuse · Page details» |
| Public liability insurance, cited on an inner page | Untranslated interface strings: «Search this site», «Embedded Files», «Report abuse» |
| Photographs of real jobs, not stock imagery | No social proof whatsoever: no reviews, no testimonials, no ratings |
| — | No legal name, tax number, legal notice or privacy policy · logo duplicated in the header |
| Missing element | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Value proposition with service and area | The user decides in under five seconds whether they are in the right place |
| Clickable phone number in the header | In renovation work, the call is conversion channel number one |
| An action button | No action is proposed anywhere on the page |
| A quick trust signal | Reduces the fear of the job abandoned halfway |
| Image of a finished job | The product is visual; the first viewport is text only |
| Finding | Description and consequence |
|---|---|
| There is no home page | Breaks the user's mental convention and concentrates all the domain's search authority on an about page |
| Four pages of redundancy | «About us», «Specialities», «Quality guarantee» and «Where we are» hold information that should live on one page with sections. Every intermediate click is a leak |
| Submenu named by project, not by service | «Rustic exposed-stone exterior plinth» is one specific job, not a category. And «Full bathroom renovation» sits beside «Other bathroom renovations» as a sibling entry |
| No kitchen entry at all | A user looking for a kitchen renovation finds nothing, even though the firm does that work |
| URLs with accented characters | Shared over WhatsApp —the dominant channel in this sector— the link arrives mangled and untrustworthy |
| A dead end | The entry page contains exactly one internal link. No invitation to see jobs, services or make contact |
| What they want | Where it is | Clicks |
|---|---|---|
| Phone number | Only on the contact page | 1–2 |
| Service area | Third paragraph of «About us» | 0–1 |
| Services offered | Fourth item in the menu | 1 |
| Photographs of past work | Sixth item in the menu | 2 |
| Any price guidance | Does not exist | ∞ |
| Customer opinions | Does not exist | ∞ |
| Current copy | Diagnosis | Proposed rewrite |
|---|---|---|
| «About us» | A headline with no commercial or search value | «Full home renovations in Aranjuez and southern Madrid since 1998» |
| «Our company» | Empty, redundant subtitle | «Free, no-obligation quote in 48 h. Delivery date fixed by contract» |
| «…since our beginnings in 1998…» | Buries the strongest asset in a subordinate clause | «27 years renovating homes in southern Madrid» |
| «all the services you may need» | Filler sentence, zero information | Three specific services, each with its own link |
| «experts with wide experience» | Generic: 100 % of the competition says it | «Our own crew, no rotating subcontractors» (if true) |
| «personalised advice» | Sector cliché | «Free technical visit at your home within 72 h» |
| «southern Madrid, although…» | Ambiguity that creates friction | An explicit list of the towns served |
The site already contains high-value commercial material buried on inner pages: a commitment to the completion date —the customer's number-one fear—, site cleaning, public liability insurance, free advice on choosing materials, and 27 years of history. There is no need to invent a value proposition: it needs rescuing from the basement of the site and placing at the top, in figures and above the fold.
«Across the entire site there is not one call to action. Zero buttons. Zero action links. Zero clickable phone numbers outside the contact page.»
| Location | Proposed action | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Sticky header, every page | Prominent clickable phone number | High |
| Desktop header | «Get a free quote» button | High |
| Above the fold | «Calculate my quote» + secondary «See finished jobs» | High |
| Fixed bottom bar on mobile | Call · WhatsApp · Quote | High |
| End of every section | «Got a project like this one? Ask us for a quote» | Medium |
| Global footer | Phone, email, WhatsApp and opening hours | Medium |
«Submit» and «Contact» are worth avoiding: they describe the user's effort. Benefit-led wording works better: «I want my free quote», «Book a no-obligation technical visit». Next to the button, a line of microcopy to lower anxiety: no obligation · reply within 24 h · we never share your data.
The title in search results carries no value proposition, so it loses clicks before the user even reaches the site.
Cannot tell in five seconds what is on offer or where. Bounce.
No action proposed. A dead end with a single internal link.
Three phone numbers in a flat list: decision paralysis at the moment of peak intent. And possibly not clickable.
A Google Form in an iframe: a foreign interface at the exact moment of handing over personal data, with no consent box or privacy policy in sight.
The conversion happens on an external domain and is never recorded: the firm does not know it happened.
| Aspect | State | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Viewport configured | Correct | Properly declared, zoom not blocked |
| Responsive layout | Correct | Platform default |
| Optimised images | Poor | 1,280 px with no lazy loading and no modern formats |
| Clickable phone | Absent | Verify — critical friction if confirmed |
| Floating call / WhatsApp button | Absent | It is the standard pattern in this sector |
| Form on mobile | Poor | Double scrolling likely inside the iframe |
| Dropdown menu | Heavy | Six entries plus seven long-named sub-entries |
The site is not optimised for mobile: it is reduced to mobile. On that screen the user wants to call, or send a WhatsApp with a photo of the room to be renovated, and the site makes neither easy. In local home services mobile traffic usually sits between 70 % and 80 %: the mobile experience is the experience.
Sixteen firms across the southern corridor, three competitor sites analysed in depth, and the composition of the search results for the area's commercial queries.
The result is an asymmetry that defines the whole strategy: GMF wins on reputation and loses on shopfront.
| Company | Rating | Reviews |
|---|---|---|
| GMF Reformas | 5.0 | 33 |
| Grupo SIAE (Ciempozuelos) | 5.0 | 34 |
| Support Home (Valdemoro) | 4.8 | 76 |
| Reformas Dalso (Valdemoro) | 4.8 | 76 |
| RAMMS Reform (Valdemoro) | 4.5 | 20 |
| JM Construcciones | 4.4 | 67 |
| MARSANVI | 4.2 | 364 |
| Buy Integral | 4.0 | 38 |
| RMS Proyectos | — | No reviews |
GMF holds the best score with credible volume in the municipality. MARSANVI dominates on volume —eleven times more reviews— but almost a full point lower. And RMS Proyectos, the firm with the best website in the market, has no public ratings at all.
| Element | GMF | MARSANVI | RMS | Standard? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Professional web platform | No | Yes | Yes | Mandatory |
| Headline with service and city | No | Yes | Yes | Mandatory |
| Call to action above the fold | No | Yes | Yes | Mandatory |
| Clickable phone number | No | Yes | Yes | Mandatory |
| No | Yes | Yes | Mandatory | |
| Fixed action bar on mobile | No | Yes | Yes | Mandatory |
| Native form with consent | No | Yes | Yes | Mandatory |
| Reviews visible on the site | No | Yes | No | Mandatory |
| Legal and cookie pages | No | Yes | Yes | Mandatory |
| Before / after comparison | No | No | Yes | Differentiator |
| Indicative prices | No | No | Yes | Differentiator |
| Financing | No | No | Yes | Differentiator |
| Pages per service and per town | No | Partial | Yes | Search-critical |
| Total | 1 / 28 | 16 / 28 | 26 / 28 | — |
GMF is not behind the market: it is outside it. It does not fall short on refinements but on the minimums every competitor takes for granted. The distance to the digital leader is not one of quality: it is one of existence.
Also based in Aranjuez. A before/after slider on the home page, a renovation calculator, a downloadable checklist, a page on price factors, a five-phase process, financing, a four-field form with microguarantees beside the button and four active social channels. It even states which services it does not cover.
It has not a single public Google rating: all of its social proof is self-declared. When a user compares, they will see 5.0 from 33 real people against a profile with no reviews. That is GMF's trump card, wasted today.
A four-item menu built entirely around conversion, authority counters, an FAQ that tackles real objections and a fixed bar on mobile. Its site shows 4.9 from 54 opinions while its public profile reads 4.2 from 364.
The top results for the area's commercial queries are taken by quote platforms that resell the same lead, ranking directories, and firms from central Madrid with pages written specifically for Aranjuez.
In the sector's typical commercial searches, GMF Reformas does not appear. Firms with no physical presence in Aranjuez are winning Aranjuez customers with a page that took an afternoon to write, while a company with 27 years in the town is invisible in the search for its own municipality.
| Competitor | Territory occupied |
|---|---|
| MARSANVI | Volume and size: «30 professionals, 36 years» |
| RMS Proyectos | Premium and design: «craftsmen», «high end», «premium finishes» |
| JM · Buy Integral | No defined positioning |
| Quote platforms | Comparison and price |
| Free territory | Reliability and keeping your word |
| Real complaints about competitors | Spontaneous praise for GMF |
|---|---|
| Jobs that run months past the agreed date | «They met every deadline» |
| Full payment taken before the job is finished | — |
| Fittings left uninstalled and nobody comes back | «If a problem comes up, he sorts it without hesitating» |
| The site handed back dirty | «They left the work spotless» |
| No communication during the work | «He kept us informed throughout the process» |
The best-rated renovation firm in Aranjuez. 5.0 ★ on Google · 33 real opinions · since 1998. Delivery date fixed by contract. The site handed back clean. Public liability insurance. And if something fails later, we come back. Every claim is verifiable, comes from material the company already owns, and answers a fear documented in its direct competitors' negative reviews.
National sector data cross-referenced with the corpus of local reviews. The archetype percentages are estimates derived from the market, not measurements of GMF's customer base.
The brake on the sector is not demand: it is capacity to deliver. And that changes the goal, which is not to maximise leads but to maximise their quality.
Home renovations in Spain in 2025 (+1.6 %)
Radar Reforma · AndimacHouseholds that made some improvement to their home
Radar Reforma · AndimacAverage budget for a full renovation
Spanish Renovation Study 2026Of consumers intend to renovate; 59 % within this year
Spanish Renovation Study 202671.7 % arrive through a recommendation and only 20 % search exclusively online. Before search rankings and service pages comes looking like a living, serious firm with demonstrable standing. That takes six weeks.
Bathrooms (10 % of households, €6,700) and kitchens (6.6 %, €9,100) hold 72 % of demand. The site has no kitchen entry at all, but does have one for an exterior stone plinth. The mismatch is one of catalogue, not capability.
The positioning does not need inventing: it is already written, in public, by GMF's customers and by its rivals' unhappy ones. A telling detail: GMF's customers name people; the competition's talk about «the company».
€7,071 against a national €8,362. The dominant profile is a one- or two-room renovation between €6,000 and €12,000, highly sensitive to cost surprises. A premium pitch does not fit the bulk of local demand.
A third are willing to finance, mostly between €5,000 and €20,000 —exactly the dominant bracket in Madrid. In the local panel only RMS offers financing. It is not an ornament: it removes the reason a €12,000 quote becomes a €6,000 one, or none at all.
| Archetype | Est. weight | Their question and their fear | What they need to see · channel |
|---|---|---|---|
| A · The referred one 45-65, bathroom or kitchen, €6,000-12,000 | ~70 % | «Are they trustworthy? Are they still trading?» · Fears the job dragging on and the house left half done | Reviews, years in business, a phone that works, recent photos · Phone or WhatsApp. Does not fill in forms |
| B · The comparer fastest-growing segment | ~20 % | «How much does it cost and who do I trust more?» · Fears being cheated on price | Price ranges, the process explained, before/after, opinions · Form or WhatsApp with photos |
| C · The big renovation €25,000-45,000 | ~5-10 % | «Can they handle a job this size?» · Fears total disaster | Complete cases with timeline and scope, phased process, insurance, financing · A long call and a visit |
| D · Accessibility work an unserved niche | Emerging | Adapting the home, with genuine urgency · Fears the job being treated as minor | An explicit service and public grants · No firm in the panel addresses this profile |
| Customer objection | Frequency | How GMF defuses it with what it already has |
|---|---|---|
| «What if the job drags on forever?» | Very high | Completion date fixed by contract, backed by its own reviews |
| «What if the final price shoots up?» | Very high | Closed, itemised quote; published ranges |
| «What if they leave my house a mess?» | High | «Site cleaning», already on the website |
| «What if a problem appears and they never come back?» | High | Liability insurance and an explicit after-sales guarantee — nobody offers one today |
| «Do they work in my town?» | High | An explicit list of municipalities |
| «I won't know how to choose materials» | Medium | Free advice, already offered but buried |
GMF has 33 reviews; MARSANVI has 364. If it delivers 30 to 50 jobs a year and has been working for 27 years, it has served hundreds of customers: the review conversion rate is tiny, and almost certainly not through dissatisfaction but because they have never been asked for systematically. One message on handover day, with a direct link to the Google profile, could take GMF from 33 to 80-100 reviews in twelve months. It needs no website, no designer and no budget, and it can start tomorrow.
There is a lot of commercial alarm around this subject. The real picture for a firm this size is more nuanced, and worth understanding before spending money.
The renovation buyer is mostly between 45 and 70. In that bracket presbyopia is practically universal: here every visual accessibility improvement is a direct conversion improvement.
| Regulation | Content and timetable |
|---|---|
| Law 11/2023 transposing Directive (EU) 2019/882 | In force since 28 June 2025 for new products and services. It mainly affects e-commerce, banking, transport and platforms. Micro-enterprises providing services —under 10 employees and under €2 M— are exempt |
| Royal Decree 193/2023 | Requires private sites offering goods and services to the public to meet EN 301 549 (WCAG 2.1 A and AA). Existing services from 1 January 2030; if contracted by a public body, the date moves earlier |
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Can GMF be fined today? | Most probably not: it is a service micro-enterprise with no e-commerce. Verify headcount and turnover |
| Is there a deadline? | Yes: 1 January 2030, under RD 193/2023 |
| Does applying for public funding change anything? | Yes, considerably. Anyone receiving public money for their website —Spain's Kit Digital, for instance— must guarantee accessibility and document it |
Act now, but not out of fear of a fine. The site is going to be rebuilt anyway: writing WCAG 2.1 AA compliance into the supplier's contract costs one sentence in the quote; retrofitting the site in 2029 costs a whole project. It is the economically obvious decision.
| Code | Barrier | Criterion | Real impact and correction |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-01 | Images with no alternative text | 1.1.1 (A) | A screen-reader user hears «image, image, image» at the end of the page: the only visual proof of GMF's work is invisible to them. A description with service and town —which also helps in search |
| A-02 | A link whose text is a full URL | 2.4.4 (A) | The link to the form is shown as the literal address and the screen reader spells it out character by character. It is the most important link on the site and the least accessible |
| A-03 | Form inside a third-party iframe | 4.1.2 (A) | Announced as a «frame» with no explanation of its content, and validation errors are never communicated. Fix: a native form with associated labels |
| A-04 | Inconsistent interface language | 3.1.2 (AA) | The skip links —the most important navigation aid— are in English on a Spanish page. Not fixable on the current platform: it resolves on migration |
| A-05 | Malformed nested lists | 1.3.1 (A) | The screen reader misreports the number of items and the nesting level |
| A-06 | Incomplete heading hierarchy | 1.3.1 (A) | Anyone navigating by headings finds a single destination: the whole page is one undifferentiated block |
| A-07 | Phone numbers that cannot be actioned | Motor | Forces the user to memorise or transcribe nine digits at the exact point of conversion |
| A-08 | Duplicated header | 2.4.1 | Consecutive links to the same destination: navigation noise |
Level A: not conformant (four confirmed failures). Level AA: not conformant. Level A is the absolute minimum: the threshold below which some users simply cannot use the site. In GMF's defence, most of these failures follow from building on a limited platform and from never writing alternative text; none is hard to fix in a proper environment.
Across the panel of nine competitors, not one addresses the customer who needs to adapt their home: swapping a bath for a walk-in shower, removing barriers, an adapted bathroom. Structural and growing demand, a fast decision —there is usually genuine urgency—, a €2,500-6,000 ticket and public grants available. Being the only firm in Aranjuez with an accessible website is coherent with being the only one selling accessibility renovations, and it is an advantage the competition cannot copy without admitting it arrived late.
The high-priority findings are not hypotheses: they are absences. Adding a button where there is none needs no prior validation, it needs doing.
The table orders by estimated conversion impact multiplied by ease of implementation. And it starts with a structural decision that unblocks the rest.
Migrate off Google Sites. Without this decision, conversion measurement, a native form, consent management, behavioural tooling and fixing the interface language are unfeasible or half-done. It is what unblocks most of the plan. Indicative cost for a site this size: €1,500 – 4,000.
| # | Finding | Impact | Effort | Concrete action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | No CTA anywhere on the site | Very high | Low | Clickable phone in the header, quote button and fixed bar on mobile |
| 2 | The entry page is «About us» | Very high | Medium | Build a commercial home: value proposition, services, proof and action |
| 3 | No value proposition above the fold | Very high | Low | A headline with service, area and founding year |
| 4 | Conversions cannot be measured | Very high | Medium | Native form, own thank-you page and a conversion event |
| 5 | Zero social proof | Very high | Medium | Testimonials with name and town, plus a Google reviews widget |
| 6 | Reviews never requested systematically | Very high | Very low | A message with a direct link on handover of every job. Needs no website |
| 7 | No WhatsApp | High | Very low | Floating button with a pre-filled message |
| 8 | Phone numbers possibly not clickable | High | Very low | tel: links and one prominent main number |
| 9 | No legal pages or consent | High | Low | Legal notice, privacy and cookies, reviewed by a lawyer |
| 10 | Benefits buried on inner pages | High | Low | A «Your job, no surprises» block with five guarantees on the home page |
| 11 | No analytics or session recording | High | Low | Analytics, Tag Manager, Clarity and Search Console |
| 12 | Four level-A accessibility failures | High | Low | Alternative text, descriptive link text, lists and headings |
| # | Finding | Impact | Concrete action |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | Catalogue misaligned with real demand | Medium-high | Landing pages for bathroom and kitchen renovation in Aranjuez |
| 14 | Generic, self-referential copy | Medium-high | Full rewrite led by benefit and by the customer's fears |
| 15 | Galleries with no context or before / after | Medium-high | Project sheets and a sliding comparison |
| 16 | Invisible in searches for its own town | Medium-high | Pages per service and per town, local business markup |
| 17 | After-sales guarantee never promised | Medium-high | An explicit written commitment. An open gap in the market |
| 18 | Unoptimised Google Business Profile | Medium-high | Photos, services, coverage area and regular posts |
| 19 | Menu ordered alphabetically | Medium | Reorder by intent: Home · Services · Work · Guarantees · Contact |
| 20 | Submenu by project, not by service | Medium | Recategorise: bathrooms, kitchens, full renovation, exteriors, roofs |
| 21 | No price guidance | Medium | A page of ranges by type of job: it attracts and filters at once |
| 22 | No FAQ | Medium | Six questions: price, timeline, guarantee, who calls, areas, materials |
| 23 | Search-result title with no proposition | Medium | Title and description with service, city and a call to action |
Low priority, from the second quarter onwards: a visual identity of its own · photographs of the crew —customers already name them in their reviews— · a video of a finished job · financing · an accessibility renovation line · social media · educational content on costs and on choosing a firm.
Clickable phones · reorder the menu · rewrite the headline and first paragraph · alternative text · optimise the Google Business Profile · start asking for reviews systematically.
All on the current site, with no migration: content and configuration.
New platform · commercial home page with actions and social proof · native form and thank-you page · legal pages · Analytics, Tag Manager and Clarity · WhatsApp Business · WCAG 2.1 AA compliance written into the contract.
This is where measurement is unblocked and the structural ceiling disappears.
Pages per service, bathroom and kitchen first · project sheets with before/after · testimonials · local business markup · pages per town.
The search engine and the material that convinces the comparer.
Session-recording analysis · sequential tests · educational content · closing the loop from enquiry to job won · the accessibility renovation line.
Now with its own data: from here on the decisions stop being opinions.
| Indicator | Today | 12-month target | Competitive reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Google rating | 5.0 ★ | Hold ≥ 4.8 | MARSANVI 4.2 |
| Number of reviews | 33 | 80 – 100 | MARSANVI 364 |
| Conversion elements on the site | 1 / 28 | 20+ / 28 | RMS 26 / 28 |
| Contact channels available | 1 | 4 or more | RMS 7 |
| Web enquiries measured | 0 — not measurable | 100 % traceable | — |
| Ranking for «reformas Aranjuez» | No visibility | Local top 5 | verify |
| WCAG conformance | Not conformant, level A | Conformant AA | — |
A good diagnosis is honest about its gaps and leaves tools behind, not just conclusions.
All three annexes can be run by anyone in the company, with no technical knowledge and no budget.
| Test | Time | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| 1 · Keyboard without touching the mouse | 20 min | Is it always visible where the focus is? Does the skip link work? Does the submenu open and can it be traversed? Does Escape close it? Can the whole form be submitted without a mouse? |
| 2 · Zoom | 10 min | At 200 % and 400 %: does everything read without horizontal scrolling? Do elements overlap? Are the menu and the phone number still reachable? |
| 3 · Contrast WAVE or axe | 15 min | Normal text ≥ 4.5:1; large text ≥ 3:1; button and field borders ≥ 3:1. Write down the number of errors: that is the baseline |
| 4 · Screen reader NVDA or VoiceOver | 25 min | Go through the page with the screen off. Is it clear what the firm does and where it works? What do you hear when you reach the photographs? This is the exercise that convinces: five minutes usually does it |
| 5 · A real phone | 15 min | One-handed, standing up: can you call with one tap? Do you hit the right menu item first time? Can you read it without bringing the phone to your face? |
| 6 · Automated | 5 min | PageSpeed Insights and WAVE. Automated tools catch 30-40 % of real problems: tests 1 and 4 are the ones that reveal the actual barriers |
An A/B test needs roughly 200 to 300 conversions per variant to detect a moderate effect reliably. A local renovation firm generates 10 to 60 enquiries a month: at that volume a classic test would take one to three years to reach significance. Any proposal for an A/B testing programme at this traffic deserves scepticism. The honest path is to implement good practice first, measure before and after in 8-12 week windows, and lean on qualitative research: 30-50 session recordings and five tests with users from the target profile reveal more than any test at this size.
| Open question | Method |
|---|---|
| How many customers arrive by recommendation rather than search? | Ask on the first call and write it down |
| What is GMF's real average ticket? | Review the last 30 closed quotes |
| What share of quotes issued are won? | A spreadsheet log |
| Why do the ones who do not hire choose someone else? | A follow-up call to 10 lost quotes |
| What made you hesitate before contacting us? | The most profitable question in the business. Survey 15 recent customers |
Report produced in August 2026 from direct analysis of the content and structure of reformasgmf.com, the public profiles of sixteen firms in the southern corridor of Madrid, an analysis of three competitor sites and the composition of the search results. Review data is a snapshot in time. Archetype percentages are sector estimates, not measurements of GMF's customer base. Observations on legal compliance are risk flags drawn from secondary sources and do not constitute legal advice.
Next in Product design UX/UI
