Legal obligation in France

Test your website's RGAA compliance for free

Analyze your website and get a free accessibility compliance score based on 106 RGAA criteria with AI recommendations.

Free analysis - Score + results overview

Free score based on the 106 official RGAA 4.1 criteria

Our numbers

FreeScore + results preview
PDFDetailed report per criterion
106RGAA criteria covered by the report
AIFix recommendations

Everything you need for RGAA compliance

A complete tool to check and improve your website's accessibility according to the 106 RGAA criteria.

Ultra-fast scan

Complete analysis of each page of your site in seconds. Detection of all 106 RGAA criteria.

Detailed report

Complete report with compliance score, detailed errors by criteria and correction priority.

Advanced AI Analysis

Personalized fix suggestions generated by artificial intelligence for each detected issue.

Legal compliance

Compliance with the legal obligation of digital accessibility in France. Avoid penalties up to €20,000.

RGAA Score Badge

Display your RGAA score on your website with a dynamic badge via a simple script.

CSV & PDF Export

Download your report in CSV or PDF format to share with your team or clients.

Multi-page scan

Automatic analysis of multiple pages of your site for complete coverage.

Accessibility Widget

Improve your site's accessibility with our widget: text zoom, contrast, simplified navigation.

Guided manual audit

Complete your automated audit with a guided manual check of the 42 RGAA criteria that can't be automated.

New

Built-in manual audit: check what automation can't

42 RGAA criteria require human verification. Our wizard guides you step by step with an integrated page viewer, tooltips, and non-compliance export.

Audit manuel RGAA
1. ImagesCritère 1.3
Pertinence de l'alternative textuelle
<2 / 8 éléments>
alt: "banner"Alt trop générique
ConformeNon ConformeN/A

Integrated page viewer

See the full page in a viewer with each element framed and highlighted. Images, links, headings, forms — everything displayed directly.

42 criteria guided step by step

Each criterion comes with precise instructions, tests to perform, and automated scan context to help you decide.

Element-by-element navigation

Navigate between elements with arrows, tooltips, and a counter. Each element is scrolled to and highlighted automatically.

Export results as CSV

Export all your verdicts (compliant, non-compliant, N/A) with your notes in a CSV file ready to share.

nav.extension

Audit directly from your browser

Install the RGAA Test extension to scan and audit 42 manual criteria on any site, with real-time element highlighting.

Automatic scan

Scan the current page via the API

42 manual criteria

Review one by one with instructions

Live highlighting

Elements highlighted on the page

CSV Export

Exportable report at any time

Discover the extension

How does it work?

3 simple steps to check your site's RGAA compliance.

Enter your URL

Type in your website address to analyze.

Free instant analysis

Get your RGAA score and a results overview for free.

Full report for €15

Unlock the detailed report with AI recommendations, CSV export and priority fixes.

Actual coverage

What the machine detects, and what it will never see

No scanner tests 100% of the RGAA, and the ones claiming otherwise are lying to you. Here are our numbers, criterion by criterion.

In short: RGAA 4.1 has 106 criteria across 13 themes. Our engine runs 74 rules over your page HTML and returns a verdict — compliant, non-compliant or not applicable — on 61 criteria. The rest come back as "NT", not tested, written as such in your report. The manual audit wizard picks up 42 of them and makes you decide element by element. Together they cover 95 of the 106 criteria. The last 11 (1.4, 1.5, 4.8, 4.9, 4.12, 5.3, 7.2, 7.4, 10.9, 13.4, 13.5) fall outside what a web tool can do: they need you to open an office document, solve a CAPTCHA or interpret ASCII art.

Breakdown of the 106 RGAA 4.1 criteria per theme: automated verdict, manual audit wizard, out of scope
RGAA themeCriteriaAuto verdictManual wizard
1. Images953
2. Frames22
3. Colours33
4. Multimedia1355
5. Tables852
6. Links221
7. Scripts53
8. Mandatory elements1084
9. Information structure442
10. Information presentation1459
11. Forms1386
12. Navigation1156
13. Consultation1264
Total1066142

8 criteria appear in both columns: the machine gives a first verdict, the wizard confirms the substance (whether an alt, a page title or a label is actually relevant).

1 Images 9 criteria

Auto : 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.8, 1.9Wizard : 1.3, 1.6, 1.7

A parser sees a missing alt (1.1) instantly. It will never know whether alt="banner" actually describes the revenue chart below it — that's criterion 1.3, and a human decides. CAPTCHAs (1.4, 1.5) are out of scope: you have to try the alternative to know if it works.

See the 9 "Images" criteria

2 Frames 2 criteria

Auto : 2.1, 2.2

The only fully automatable theme. An iframe has a title, or it doesn't. Our two rules check presence, then reject empty titles and the classic title="iframe" or title="widget".

See the 2 "Frames" criteria

3 Colours 3 criteria

Auto : 3.1, 3.2, 3.3

All 3 criteria get a verdict: a contrast ratio is pure arithmetic. But let's be precise about the limit — our rules read colours declared in inline styles, not those coming from an external stylesheet, and text sitting on a background image or a gradient escapes static computation anyway. Our contrast checker lets you replay a colour pair by hand.

See the 3 "Colours" criteria

4 Multimedia 13 criteria

Auto : 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.11Wizard : 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.13

The most expensive theme to audit. We detect a missing <track kind="captions"> (4.3) or uncontrollable autoplay (4.10). No machine can verify that captions are synchronised and complete (4.4): you have to watch the video. The wizard walks you through it, line by line.

See the 13 "Multimedia" criteria

5 Tables 8 criteria

Auto : 5.1, 5.4, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8Wizard : 5.2, 5.5

We check for <caption> (5.4), for <th> and their scope (5.6, 5.7), and that a layout table has no <th> (5.8). Whether the summary and caption are relevant (5.2, 5.5) requires reading the table. 5.3, linearising a layout table, stays out of scope.

See the 8 "Tables" criteria

6 Links 2 criteria

Auto : 6.1, 6.2Wizard : 6.2

Two criteria, but the classic French trap: "Learn more" repeated 14 times on one page. Our link-pertinent rule flags it automatically. 6.2 also goes through the wizard, because a link label can be explicit inside its paragraph and unreadable out of context.

See the 2 "Links" criteria

7 Scripts 5 criteria

Auto : 7.1, 7.3, 7.5

We catch the <div onclick> with no ARIA role, positive tabindex, and status messages without aria-live (7.5). But 7.2 and 7.4 require actually using the component: a homemade dropdown can carry role="menu" and still be untraversable by keyboard. A static scan does not click.

See the 5 "Scripts" criteria

8 Mandatory elements 10 criteria

Auto : 8.1, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.9, 8.10Wizard : 8.2, 8.4, 8.6, 8.8

The best automatically covered theme: doctype (8.1), lang on <html> (8.3) and its validity (8.4), <title> presence (8.5), inline language changes (8.7). What remains: code validity (8.2) and page title relevance (8.6) — "Home" is a title that exists and helps nobody.

See the 10 "Mandatory elements" criteria

9 Information structure 4 criteria

Auto : 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4Wizard : 9.2, 9.4

We see the H2 → H4 level skip and the missing <h1> (9.1). What we don't see: a <main> wrapped around the nav, or a product list marked up as <div>. Document structure (9.2) means comparing what is displayed with what is marked up — the wizard viewer puts both side by side.

See the 4 "Information structure" criteria

10 Information presentation 14 criteria

Auto : 10.1, 10.4, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8Wizard : 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.5, 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, 10.13, 10.14

This is where the gap is most brutal: only 5 criteria out of 14 get an automated verdict. We detect outline:none with no alternative (10.7), an unstyled link inside a paragraph (10.6), a user-scalable=no in the viewport meta (10.4). But reflow at 320px (10.11) and text spacing (10.12) require resizing a real window. Nine criteria go to the wizard.

See the 14 "Information presentation" criteria

11 Forms 13 criteria

Auto : 11.1, 11.2, 11.5, 11.6, 11.8, 11.9, 11.10, 11.13Wizard : 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.7, 11.11, 11.12

The unlabelled field (11.1) is our most frequent detection, and the easiest to fix. We also see missing autocomplete (11.13) and unmarked required fields (11.10). But knowing whether an error message actually suggests a correction (11.11) means submitting the form with bad values: that's the wizard. And we do not yet scan pages behind authentication.

See the 13 "Forms" criteria

12 Navigation 11 criteria

Auto : 12.1, 12.6, 12.7, 12.8, 12.9Wizard : 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.10, 12.11

We check the two navigation systems (12.1), landmark regions (12.6), the skip link (12.7) and consistent tab order (12.8). Menu consistency across pages (12.2) and sitemap relevance (12.4) require comparing several pages: our crawl fetches up to 20, the verdict stays human.

See the 11 "Navigation" criteria

13 Consultation 12 criteria

Auto : 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.7, 13.8, 13.10Wizard : 13.6, 13.9, 13.11, 13.12

Auto-refresh (13.1), unannounced new windows (13.2) and a downloadable PDF without an accessible version (13.3) come straight out of the scan. The rest is physical: stopping blinking content (13.6), cancelling a gesture (13.11), rotating the screen (13.12). And two criteria are covered by neither engine — 13.4 (accessible office document) and 13.5 (ASCII art, emoticons). We would rather say so.

See the 12 "Consultation" criteria

To dig into a specific theme: contrast checker (theme 3) · disability simulator (themes 3 and 10) · the 106 criteria explained · accessibility statement generator

Before / after

The 5 issues we flag most, and the code that fixes them

Each block shows the exact message from one of our rules, the RGAA criterion at stake, and the fix. Copy it as is.

Criterion 1.1

Informative image with no alternative

Scan message Image sans attribut alt

Non-compliant
<img src="/graph-ca-2025.png" width="600">
Compliant
<img src="/graph-ca-2025.png" width="600"
     alt="Chiffre d'affaires 2025 : 1,2 M€, en hausse de 18 % sur 2024">

The alt="chart" reflex passes the automated rule and fails criterion 1.3 at audit time. The alternative must carry the information, not name the file. If the image is decorative, use alt="" — empty, not absent.

Criterion 3.2

Insufficient text contrast

Scan message Ratio de contraste potentiellement insuffisant sur fond clair : 2.54:1 (minimum 4.5:1)

Non-compliant
<p style="color: #9ca3af">
  Champ facultatif
</p>
Compliant
<p style="color: #565f6e">
  Champ facultatif
</p>

Light grey on white is the most banal non-compliance on the French web, and it is fixed by changing one value: #9ca3af gives 2.54:1 on white, #565f6e gives 6.45:1. RGAA threshold: 4.5:1 below 24px (or below 18.5px bold), 3:1 above. Worth knowing — this rule reads inline styles, not your external stylesheets: for a colour pair coming from a class, use our contrast checker.

Criterion 11.1

Form field with no label

Scan message Champ de formulaire sans étiquette associée

Non-compliant
<input type="email" placeholder="Votre email">
Compliant
<label for="email">Votre email</label>
<input type="email" id="email" name="email"
       autocomplete="email">

A placeholder is not a label: it vanishes on input, and most screen readers do not restore it reliably. If the design forbids a visible label, aria-label="Your email" passes the criterion — but a visible label is better for everyone.

Criterion 7.1

Clickable div unreachable by keyboard

Scan message Élément avec onclick sans rôle ARIA (button, link, etc.)

Non-compliant
<div class="card" onclick="openModal()">
  Voir le détail
</div>
Compliant
<button type="button" class="card" onclick="openModal()">
  Voir le détail
</button>

Adding role="button" tabindex="0" silences our rule, but you then have to handle Enter and Space and the pressed state yourself. A real <button> gives you focus, keyboard and role for free. The CSS reapplies as-is with an appearance reset.

Criterion 10.7

Invisible focus indicator

Scan message CSS supprime le focus outline sans alternative visible

Non-compliant
* {
  outline: none;
}
Compliant
:focus-visible {
  outline: 3px solid #4f46e5;
  outline-offset: 2px;
}

This outline:none lingers in nearly every CSS reset copied from an old template. It makes the site unusable by keyboard without a single designer noticing, because the mouse never triggers :focus-visible. Our rule reads your inline <style> and flags it.

RGAA test, RGAA checker: what the tool actually checks

“RGAA test” and “RGAA checker” mean the same thing: running a site against the Référentiel général d’amélioration de l’accessibilité, the French method that verifies WCAG 2.1 level AA through 106 criteria. No automated checker covers all 106 — a machine cannot judge whether an alt text truly describes an image or whether a link label is relevant.

Our checker returns an automated verdict on 61 of the 106 criteria. The remaining ones need a human eye: the guided manual audit covers 42 more. The free score tells you where the problems are; it does not replace your accessibility statement.

Simple and transparent pricing

Start for free, pay only for the full report.

Free

0€
  • RGAA compliance score
  • Overview of main errors
  • Scan up to 20 pages
  • Global summary
Test for free

Monthly monitoring

39€/month/site
  • Everything in full report included
  • 1 site monitored continuously
  • Automatic monthly scan (up to 1,000 pages)
  • Dynamic RGAA Score badge
  • Accessibility widget included
  • Score evolution tracking
  • Email alerts
  • Priority support
Subscribe

Enterprise

Custom
  • Multi-site auditing
  • Team accounts with roles
  • Enterprise billing (quotes, purchase orders)
  • API access
  • Dedicated support
  • Custom SLA
Request a quote

Frequently asked questions about RGAA testing

The questions we get asked before a scan. Short answers, no sales pitch.

No, and nobody should tell you otherwise. The free test gives you a score and a preview of the issues found across up to 20 pages. It catches non-compliance visible in the code: missing alt, low contrast, unlabelled fields. It replaces neither the manual check of relevance criteria nor your accessibility statement.
61 of the 106 RGAA 4.1 criteria get an automated verdict (compliant, non-compliant or not applicable) from our 74 rules. The other 45 come back as "NT", not tested. Our manual audit wizard picks up 42 of them and makes you decide. Total: 95 of the 106 criteria get a verdict.
No. An accessibility statement requires a compliance rate computed over every applicable criterion, including those no machine tests. So a manual audit is unavoidable. Once your verdicts are entered in the wizard, our statement generator reuses your results to produce the document you publish.
The public sector is subject to the RGAA with no threshold. A private company falls under article 47 only above €250M of revenue in France. Below that, the European Accessibility Act has applied since 28 June 2025 from 10 employees or €2M revenue, and only if you sell to consumers. Our "RGAA obligation" page gives you the verdict in 4 questions.
The RGAA is not a rival standard to WCAG: it is the French testing method that verifies WCAG 2.1 level AA. WCAG states the rules, the RGAA turns them into 106 criteria and reproducible tests, plus a statement procedure. If you are RGAA-compliant, you are WCAG 2.1 AA-compliant.
The RGAA methodology requires a sample of at least 8 pages, including the mandatory ones: home, contact, legal notice, sitemap, help, authentication, search results and the accessibility statement. Add one page per distinct template. Our free scan crawls up to 20, the €15 report up to 500.
The free score tells you something is wrong. The €15 report tells you where: all 106 criteria with their status page by page, the offending code snippets, an AI-written summary, and PDF, Excel and CSV exports. If you fix things yourself, the free tier may be enough to start. We own that.
For monitoring, not for one-off scans. An accessible site breaks again on the next deploy: an image published without alt, a component rebuilt without a visible focus ring. The subscription rescans automatically every month across up to 1,000 pages, tracks the score, sends email alerts, and includes the dynamic badge and the widget.
Budget a good half-day for a brochure site, more if you have complex forms or video. The wizard shows the page in a built-in viewer, outlines each relevant element and lists the tests to run. You decide: compliant, non-compliant or not applicable, with your own notes.
Not yet. Our crawler only fetches public URLs: intranets, customer areas and back-offices escape it, even though that is often where form issues pile up. Current workaround: the Chrome or Firefox extension, which analyses the page displayed in your browser, logged-in session included.
Yes, run a new scan on the same URL: the report is recomputed and you compare. One caveat — a score going from 62 to 94 does not mean compliant. It means the machine-detectable issues are gone. The NT criteria have not moved.