Building an accessible website (RGAA): practical guide 2026
An accessible website can be used by a person with a disability (visual, motor, hearing, or cognitive) thanks to sufficient contrast, navigation possible with the keyboard alone, text alternatives on images, and a logical heading structure readable by a screen reader. RGAA (the French general framework for improving accessibility) is the French reference standard, mandatory for the public sector and gradually extended to certain private players.
The real problem: accessibility is treated as an option, not a baseline
Most websites aren't designed with accessibility in mind from the start. A fix gets bolted on afterward: a bit of contrast here, a missing alt tag there. The result is a site that ticks boxes without actually being usable by someone with low vision, hearing loss, or reduced hand mobility.
But accessibility doesn't only concern a minority of visitors identified as "having a disability." Weak contrast also bothers someone using their phone in bright sunlight. Poorly designed keyboard navigation also bothers someone with a faulty trackpad. An accessible website is, in most cases, simply a site better built for everyone.
Who's affected by a legal requirement
RGAA applies as a mandatory requirement to:
- state services, local authorities, and public institutions;
- organizations delegated a public service mission;
- companies whose revenue exceeds a certain threshold, under the European Accessibility Act, whose transposition is gradually extending obligations to more private players (e-commerce, banking, transport, and telecommunications in particular).
For a tradesperson, a law firm, or a restaurant, there's generally no direct legal requirement today. But accessibility remains relevant for two concrete reasons: it broadens the site's real audience (older people, temporary vision issues, slow connections), and it's increasingly viewed as a general quality criterion, including by Google.
The concrete points to prioritize
- Color contrast: text must stand out clearly enough from the background (a minimum ratio of 4.5:1 for body text under WCAG standards, the basis of RGAA). Light gray text on a white background, very common in "clean" designs, often fails this criterion.
- Keyboard navigation: every clickable element (menu, button, form) must be accessible using only the Tab key, without a mouse. This is the quickest test to do yourself: unplug the mouse and navigate.
- Text alternatives on images: every meaningful image must have alternative text (the "alt" attribute) describing its content for a screen reader.
- Logical heading structure: heading tags (H1, H2, H3) must follow a coherent hierarchy, with no skips or purely decorative use. A screen reader uses this to let the user navigate directly between sections.
- Labeled forms: every form field must have a clearly associated label, not just placeholder text inside the field that disappears once typing starts.
- Video captions: essential for hearing accessibility, and also useful for any visitor browsing without sound.
How to assess your site's current state
| Method | What it detects | Limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Automated tool (WAVE, Axe) | Contrast, missing alt tags, basic HTML structure | Only detects part of the real issues, often estimated at a third |
| Manual keyboard test | Navigation, tab order, focus traps | Takes time but free |
| Screen reader test (NVDA, VoiceOver) | Reading coherence, text alternatives, structure | Requires some learning of the tool |
| Professional RGAA audit | Full compliance on the required page sample | Cost, generally several hundred to a few thousand euros depending on site size |
Do you need to rebuild the site to make it accessible?
Rarely in full. Most fixes (contrast, text alternatives, form labels, heading structure) don't require a complete rebuild. The cases that require real redesign work are those where the interface relies on interactive components poorly coded from the start (dropdown menus inaccessible by keyboard, carousels with no controls, popups trapping focus).
Building accessibility in from the design stage of a new site costs little extra time. Fixing it afterward on an existing, poorly structured site can represent, depending on the scope, a budget of 500 to several thousand euros for a full RGAA compliance effort with audit.
What accessibility changes for your SEO
Accessibility and SEO share part of their technical requirements: a logical heading structure, text alternatives on images, and clear navigation are both accessibility criteria and signals Google uses to understand and rank a page. That's not a coincidence: both disciplines aim to make content unambiguously understandable, one for a person using assistive technology, the other for an indexing bot.
In practice, a site that fixes its accessibility gaps often fixes, along the way, SEO weaknesses it hadn't identified as such: poorly structured headings, images with no description, link text that's not clear ("click here" instead of a clear label).
The most common mistakes seen on professional websites
- Buttons or links represented only by an icon, with no alternative text or accessible description, incomprehensible to a screen reader.
- Dropdown menus that only open on mouse hover, invisible and unusable with a keyboard.
- Presentation videos with no captions, even though they often carry the page's main sales pitch.
- Forms where the error message is only indicated by color (red), with no explicit text, invisible to someone who is colorblind or has low vision.
- Session timeouts too short on logged-in areas, which log people out before someone who needs more time to navigate has finished their task.
Key takeaways
- Accessibility isn't reserved for public sites: it broadens the real audience and improves the experience for all visitors, including under degraded conditions (sunlight, slow connection, cracked screen).
- Five points cover the essentials: contrast, keyboard navigation, text alternatives, heading structure, labeled forms.
- Automated tools (WAVE, Axe) give a first free but incomplete diagnosis; a manual keyboard test reveals problems they don't detect.
- Built in from the design stage, accessibility costs little; fixed afterward on a poorly structured site, it can require a costly partial redesign.
- RGAA's legal requirements today target the public sector, but they're gradually extending to the private sector through the European Accessibility Act.
Frequently asked questions
Is RGAA mandatory for my website? RGAA is a legal requirement for public services and certain organizations delegated a public service mission. For a typical private business, it's not a direct requirement today, but the European Accessibility Act is gradually extending these requirements to more private players depending on their sector and size.
Does an accessible website cost more to build? Built in from the design stage, the extra cost is generally small: proper contrast, a logical heading structure, and text alternatives on images are good practices that don't significantly extend development. It's bringing an already-built site into compliance afterward that costs more, since it often requires reworking the code structure.
How do I know if my website is accessible? Free tools like WAVE or the Axe extension give a first automated diagnosis, but they only catch part of the problems (roughly a third, according to common industry estimates). A full RGAA audit requires manual testing, particularly keyboard navigation and screen reader use.
What level of compliance should I aim for? RGAA distinguishes several compliance levels calculated on a sample of pages tested against more than a hundred criteria. For a private site with no legal obligation, targeting the essential points (contrast, keyboard, text alternatives, structure) already covers most real user needs.
In summary
Accessibility is better handled upfront than fixed after the fact. If you're launching a redesign, explicitly ask for compliant contrast, working keyboard navigation, and text alternatives right from delivery: these are part of normal design work, not an extra billed feature. That's what VeryAppi's website plan covers by default, with no separate audit to order.
Frequently asked questions
›Is RGAA mandatory for my website?
RGAA is a legal requirement for public services and certain organizations delegated a public service mission. For a typical private business, it's not a direct requirement today, but the European Accessibility Act (covering digital products and services) is gradually extending these requirements to more private players depending on their sector and size.
›Does an accessible website cost more to build?
Built in from the design stage, the extra cost is generally small: proper contrast, a logical heading structure, and text alternatives on images are good practices that don't significantly extend development. It's bringing an already-built site into compliance afterward that costs more, since it often requires reworking the code structure.
›How do I know if my website is accessible?
Free tools like WAVE or the Axe extension give a first automated diagnosis, but they only catch part of the problems (roughly a third, according to common industry estimates). A full RGAA audit requires manual testing, particularly keyboard navigation and screen reader use.
›What level of compliance should I aim for?
RGAA distinguishes several compliance levels (non-compliant, partially compliant, fully compliant) calculated on a sample of pages tested against more than a hundred criteria. For a private site with no legal obligation, targeting the essential points (contrast, keyboard, text alternatives, structure) already covers most real user needs.