In the reality of web projects, there are many reasons for wanting to test accessibility before a formal RGAA audit. Out of simple curiosity, to raise awareness of accessibility, because the budget has not yet been committed, or to check what has been delivered by a service provider before going any further. But how do you go about it?
This article proposes a series of simple tests, which can be carried out by a non-expert team, to identify signs of non-accessibility. Please note: these checks do not constitute an RGAA audit or an assessment of compliance, and under no circumstances can a site be declared accessible. Their purpose is quite different: to highlight, very quickly, clear alerts indicating that accessibility has probably not been sufficiently integrated into the project.
Why carry out accessibility tests before an RGAA audit?
The RGAA audit remains the only reference for assessing a website's compliance with accessibility standards in France. However, in many contexts, it is useful to be able to carry out a quick first look. These tests can meet concrete needs: detecting blocking problems before going live, prioritising corrections before a formal audit, or simply understanding the current state of a site. They are a pragmatic first step in the accessibility process.
7 simple tests to quickly spot signs of non-accessibility
Tip 1: Put your mouse away!
The first test consists of navigating the site without using the mouse, using only the keyboard. In practical terms, this means using the Tab and Shift+Tab keys to move between interactive elements, Enter to activate links and buttons, and Esc to close modal windows or drop-down menus.
This test can quickly reveal several types of problem: interactive elements that are completely inaccessible using the keyboard, an incoherent navigation order that does not follow the visual logic of the page, menus or modals that are impossible to close without a mouse, or buttons and links that remain invisible when the focus is on them. If a key action on the site cannot be performed using the keyboard, the site is simply not accessible to a significant proportion of users.
Tip 2: Follow the focus
The keyboard focus must be clearly visible on all interactive elements. To check this, simply navigate the keyboard and carefully observe whether the focus is still identifiable. This test allows you to detect very common problems: a focus that is completely suppressed by the CSS, a focus that is too discreet and blends in with the design, or a focus that is masked by an animation or overlay.
The visibility of the focus is one of the points most often not complied with during RGAA audits, as many sites deliberately suppress this indicator for aesthetic reasons, without measuring the impact on accessibility.
Tip 3: Zoom in!
This test involves using the browser's zoom function to display the page at 200 % of its initial size, without changing the font size in the system settings. This manipulation highlights several common problems: text that is truncated or blocks that overlap, menus that become unusable, forms whose layout breaks, or buttons that go off the screen.
This test concerns not only visually impaired people who use the zoom systematically, but also all users who suffer from visual fatigue or who use mobile devices with a reduced display.
The Sephora site zoomed in at 200% as in the example shows no major problems with the text on the homepage. Observation made in December 2025.
Tip 4: Check the consistency of the content
To assess the structure of the content, you need to browse the page using only the headings and links, without reading the text in its entirety. This approach allows us to ask a number of essential questions: do the headings really describe the content of each section? Is the hierarchy of headings logical and does it follow a coherent progression? Do the link headings make sense when read out of context?
This test is particularly effective for detecting editorial problems that have a direct impact on accessibility, especially for screen reader users who often navigate by title or by list of links.
The Samsung site has consistent content on some pages and inconsistencies on others. On the IT and mobile communication page, for example, two h3s follow on from each other (highlighted on the screenshot by the Heading Tag markup extension). Observation made in December 2025.
Tip 5: Look at your forms
Forms account for a large proportion of RGAA non-compliance. To test them, simply submit a form and deliberately introduce errors. A number of things need to be checked: do the error messages clearly explain the problem and how to correct it? Is the field in error easily identifiable visually? Is the focus correctly repositioned on the first field in error after submission?
An inaccessible form can completely block an essential user journey, such as registering, placing an order or getting in touch.
Tip no. 6: Remove images
A simple approach to testing image processing is to read the page without taking the images into account, asking yourself whether the information is still comprehensible. Are certain images essential to understanding the content? If so, is their text alternative present and sufficient?
This test allows you to quickly identify informative images that have not been correctly processed, i.e. that do not have a relevant textual alternative for users who cannot see them. See also «Informative or decorative images: making the difference in digital accessibility (RGAA)»
Tip 7: Take a look at the contrasts
Without using a specialised tool, it is possible to spot obvious contrast problems: light text on a light background, text placed directly on an image without background treatment, or the use of a small font size combined with a thin typeface.
If you don't have any particular eyesight problems and reading is uncomfortable for you under «normal» viewing conditions, it will be even more so for many users, particularly those with impaired vision, colour blindness or visual fatigue.
Reading the menu on the Kiabi website is uncomfortable (white text on a pale greyish pink): even without a specialised tool you can tell there is a lack of contrast. Observation made in December 2025.
What these tests can do... and what they can't do
These simple tests enable you to detect blocking problems quickly, prioritise corrections before a formal audit, avoid major errors in production and gain a better understanding of what a future RGAA report will reveal. They constitute a first layer of evaluation accessible to all members of a project team.
However, they cannot be used to certify compliance with the RGAA, to cover all accessibility criteria, or to replace a formal audit carried out by experts. They provide only a partial, albeit useful, indication of a site's accessibility status.
In short, these simple tips and tests provide a quick, pragmatic overview of a site's accessibility. When they reveal problems, they indicate one thing above all: that accessibility has not been integrated into the project early enough. Nevertheless, they can help to raise awareness and lay the foundations for a more comprehensive accessibility approach.