Accessibility

📊 Detailed results

The official RGAA method calculates the rate by dividing the number of compliant criteria by the number of applicable criteria. A criterion that has not been evaluated cannot be counted as compliant: this is why the rate shown above is presented as a floor rather than as a final result.

Test results. The RGAA 4.1.2 conformity tests carried out on 21 August 2026 show that 100 % of the 87 applicable criteria are met. No criterion fails. The breakdown appears below, criterion by criterion.

Breakdown of the 106 RGAA 4.1.2 criteria as at 21 August 2026:

• 87 compliant criteria
• 0 non-compliant criteria — no failure remaining to date
• 0 criteria awaiting review — the human review of judgement-based criteria is complete
• 19 criteria not applicable to this site
• Framework total: 106 criteria, of which 87 are applicable — the basis of the calculation

These figures reconcile with the automated assessment, and it is worth saying how. The tool returns 69 criteria compliant by machine test, 27 criteria referred to human review and 10 criteria not applicable. Human review settled those 27 criteria: 18 compliant, 9 not applicable. Hence 69 + 18 = 87 compliant criteria, and 10 + 9 = 19 not applicable. Anyone re-running a tool on this site would therefore obtain 69 / 27 / 10: the gap with the figures above rests entirely on human review, not on a difference of judgement.

The 19 non-applicable criteria are criteria 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 4.2, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.12, 4.13, 5.2, 6.2, 13.3, 13.4 and 13.6. The site contains none of the following: a CAPTCHA (1.4, 1.5); a content iframe (2.1, 2.2); non-time-based media such as object or embed (4.8, 4.9, 4.12); information-bearing time-based media — the site’s only video is a silent, decorative ambient video, backed by a fallback photograph, carrying no content of its own (4.2, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.13); a complex image — chart, diagram, infographic — calling for a long description (1.6, 1.7); a complex table requiring a summary, the site’s only data table having a single header row (5.2); a link whose label relies on a title attribute (6.2); a downloadable office document (13.3, 13.4); cryptic content, ASCII art or a meaning-bearing emoticon (13.6). The calculation therefore covers 87 criteria.

Why the status remains “partially compliant” despite 100% — for a single reason now: the absence of rendering tests with the assistive technologies recommended by the RGAA baseline (NVDA + Firefox, VoiceOver + Safari iOS) on the live site. The RGAA methodology calls for them, and declaring ourselves fully compliant without ever having had a page read aloud by a screen reader would go beyond what has been verified. The status will be reviewed after the first-quarter 2027 campaign.

✅ Compliant points

Verifications were carried out by source code analysis, by automated tools, and for some of them by measurement in a real browser — the number of pages checked is stated in each case. The following elements comply with WCAG 2.1 / RGAA 4.1.2 level AA:

• Semantic structure — header, main, footer, nav, role="region" regions with aria-label (RGAA 12.6)
• Skip link to main content, present and keyboard-operable — verified on 201 pages (RGAA 12.11)
• Text alternatives — every image carries an alt attribute across the 201 pages checked, including 210 images on 30 product pages; decorative images are hidden from assistive technologies (RGAA 1.1 / 1.2)
• Consistent heading hierarchy h1→h2→h3, with no level skipped — 13 headings recorded in code order on the home page, none skipped. That page’s main heading, which the markup invalidated, was restored on 17 August 2026 (RGAA 9.1 — see “Corrections made”)
• Valid source code — the content of each element respects the model the HTML specification allows it (RGAA 8.2 — corrected on 17 August 2026)
• Content and reading order independent of presentation — verified on 17 August 2026: no information-bearing text is produced by the stylesheet alone, and the six elements taken out of the flow sit either in a decorative grid hidden from assistive technologies or in a complementary <aside> placed late in the code, where reading it last is logical (RGAA 10.2 / 10.3)
• Journey usable without JavaScript — verified on the code actually served: the main navigation (two <nav> landmarks, 21 links each), the 61 links to the shop and its departments, the search form and the newsletter subscription form are all present in HTML, without depending on a script. The contact modals and collapsible panels are enhancements, not the service itself (RGAA 7.2)
• Cart data table — <th scope="col"> headers on all six columns, a <caption> intended for assistive technologies, and readable linearisation (RGAA 5.3 / 5.5 / 5.6 / 5.7 — caption added on 17 August 2026)
• Site map faithful to the real architecture — 70 links in nested lists; not one section of the main menu is missing from it (RGAA 12.3)
• Information never conveyed by colour, shape, size or position alone — mandatory fields are marked with aria-required, the visual asterisk being hidden from assistive technologies; the site contains no chart, no legend and no colour coding (RGAA 3.1 / 10.9 / 10.10)
• Pointer actions cancellable — no control is triggered on mousedown, pointerdown or touchstart: all wait for the click event, which is cancelled by releasing away from the target (RGAA 13.11)
• Contrasts compliant with WCAG AA — 43 measurements taken on the CSS actually served, with transparencies flattened, and no failure. Ratio ≥ 4.5:1 for body text, ≥ 3:1 for large bold text. Dedicated tokens --ocre-text (5.68:1), --ocre-btn (4.60:1). “Privacy policy” link in the cookie banner: --ocre-l (#D9A44E, 5.35:1 on --ardoise background) (RGAA 3.2)
• Links within a block of text — underlined, in ochre and semi-bold, across page content as well as account and checkout screens; measured on screen, no link relies on colour alone (RGAA 10.6 — corrected on 21 August 2026, see “Corrections made”)
• Visible focus indicators — 34 elements tested on screen across 15 pages, all showing a visible change when focus is received; no outline:none (RGAA 10.7)
• Forms — <label for> labels associated with every field across the 201 pages checked, checkout funnel included, aria-required on mandatory fields, autocomplete on personal data fields (RGAA 11.1 / 11.13)
• Labels consistent from page to page for fields serving the same function (RGAA 11.3 — corrected on 17 August 2026, see “Corrections made”)
• Input assistance and error reporting — each form has a message area linked to the relevant field by aria-describedby, with aria-invalid and a role="alert" container (RGAA 11.10 / 11.11 — corrected on 17 August 2026)
• Closed panels removed from the keyboard path — search, menu and mini-cart carry visibility:hidden when closed: verified on the live site, none of the 31 focusable elements they contain can be reached by keyboard (RGAA 10.8)
• Focus trap Tab/Shift+Tab on the five contact modals, the mini-cart, the search overlay and the mobile menu — Escape closes and restores focus (RGAA 7.1 / WCAG 2.1.2)
• Search field with autocomplete compliant with ARIA 1.2 — role="combobox", aria-expanded, aria-controls, aria-activedescendant, ArrowDown/Up/Enter/Escape navigation (RGAA 7.1 / 7.3)
• Disclosure components operable by keyboard — Enter and Space keys actually pressed on screen across 11 pages, with the expected response observed (RGAA 7.3)
• Quote request modal — product selection via <button aria-pressed>, category filter via native <details>/<summary>, quantity area with discriminating labels (RGAA 7.1 / 11.1)
• Arrow key navigation on product tabs — complete ARIA Tabs pattern, role="tab", aria-selected, aria-controls, roving tabindex (RGAA 7.1)
• Delivery progress bar — role="progressbar", aria-valuenow/min/max (RGAA 7.5)
• Cookie banner — role="alertdialog", focus on the first button when it appears, refusal and acceptance offered at the same level (RGAA 7.1)
• Product variation selectors — rendered as <select> elements associated with a <label for>; the theme’s variable.php file adds aria-required, aria-describedby and aria-live to the dynamic price/stock area. Criterion 11.6 (legend for field groupings) is compliant (RGAA 11.1 / 11.6)
• Mini-cart — “Remove” button with an aria-label including the product name (RGAA 6.1)
• Product review form — radio buttons within <fieldset>/<legend>, star labels intended for screen readers (RGAA 11.1)
• Non-nested aria-live regions — announcements without duplication (RGAA 7.5)
• No duplicate identifiers in the document — verified on 27 pages in real rendering (RGAA 8.2 / WCAG 4.1.1)
• Language declared — all 200 pages of the site declare their language, and the declared lang matches the URL prefix on every prefixed page; valid HTML5 document type (RGAA 8.1 / 8.3 / 8.4)
• Pagination — <nav aria-label>, and a distinct page title for each page of a paginated list (RGAA 12.8 — corrected on 17 August 2026)
• Relevant page titles — 21 titles recorded, all unique; each identifies its page once the site name is removed (RGAA 8.6)
• The visible label of a control is present in its accessible name — a button’s displayed text is no longer produced by the stylesheet in place of its real text, which made voice control inoperative and displayed a false label (WCAG 2.5.3, outside RGAA 4.1.2 — corrected on 17 August 2026)
• No horizontal scrolling at 320 px wide — measured on screen across 12 pages (RGAA 10.11)
• Hover content — 3 items verified on screen across 11 pages: persistent, hoverable, and dismissible or obscuring nothing (RGAA 10.13)
• Adapts to the user’s chosen font size — html { font-size: 100% } and navigation breakpoints expressed in em (56.25em / 57.56em) rather than pixels: the menu switches to its compact form when text is enlarged up to 200% (RGAA 10.4)
• No content flashes more than three times per second — verified on 17 August 2026, for stylesheet animations and script-driven ones alike: the only looping CSS animation runs for 9 seconds per cycle and the others play once (0.18 to 0.25 seconds); the particle animation triggered on hover produces only single-colour elements of 1 to 4 pixels whose opacity fades without ever alternating (RGAA 13.7)
• Ambient video on the “Our story” page — silent, decorative, hidden from assistive technologies, and provided with a keyboard-accessible stop and resume control (RGAA 13.8 / 4.11)

➕ Checks beyond RGAA 4.1.2

RGAA 4.1.2 does not cover every disability. The following checks were carried out in addition to the framework, with no legal obligation to do so:

• Reduced motion — the site honours the system “reduce motion” setting: presence of @media (prefers-reduced-motion) confirmed in the CSS actually served (WCAG 2.3.3, level AAA)
• Target size and spacing — 68 targets measured on screen, none too tightly spaced; 25 targets below 24 px are sufficiently isolated to satisfy the spacing exception (WCAG 2.5.8, level AA of WCAG 2.2, outside RGAA 4.1.2)
• Colour blindness — search for colour pairs that pass in normal vision but whose contrast collapses under deuteranopia or protanopia
• Voice control — verification that the visible text of every control appears in its accessible name, failing which a “click on…” command would not work (WCAG 2.5.3)
• Tunnel vision, tremor, attention disorders — content revealed on hover only, sticky headers hiding focus, carousels without a stop control
• Cognitive load — readability index measured page by page. Acknowledged area for improvement: 7 pages show a LIX readability index of 64, corresponding to difficult text (long sentences, specialised vocabulary). Editorial simplification of these pages is on the action plan.

🌍 Multilingual content

This website is published in French, English and Spanish. French is the reference language, and this statement has legal force in French only.

• RGAA 8.3 and 8.4 — the language of each page is declared in the markup and matches its content: verified on all 200 pages of the site, with the lang value matching the URL prefix on every prefixed page.
• RGAA 8.7 — no block of text, no label and no attribute in a language other than that of its page was found on the French, English and Spanish versions of the home page. Where such a passage exists, it is wrapped in a lang attribute and preceded by an explicit notice in the page’s language, so that a screen reader switches voice at the right place.
  Methodological reservation: the automated check for this criterion was corrected on 17 August 2026. Its earlier version could not detect anything at all; the results it produced before that date are therefore worthless and do not underpin this statement. The corrected check also examines form labels, button names, text intended for screen readers only, and the alt, aria-label and title attributes. Extending it to the full sample is on the first-quarter 2027 campaign.
• Catalogue translation complete — 84 translation pairs were compared with their source: none remained identical to it. Product titles, category names, brands, customer review blocks and the extension texts seen by customers all follow the page language. Administration screens remain in French, which does not affect visitors.
• Language switcher — every link carries lang and hreflang, the button has an accessible name, and a label is provided for screen readers.

Technical note: paginated pages and service-parameter URLs deliberately carry no hreflang tags. An hreflang tag must be reciprocal to be valid, yet the translation of page 2 of an archive is page 1 in the other language, which does not point back to it. This choice has no effect on accessibility or on criteria 8.3, 8.4 and 8.7: it concerns search engine indexing only.

✅ Human review — completed

Twenty-five criteria in the framework cannot be settled by any tool: they concern the relevance of a piece of content, a judgement that requires an assessor. All of them were examined on 17 August 2026. The detail of that examination is recorded here, so that it can be challenged:

• Relevance of text alternatives (1.3) — the eight information-bearing alternatives were reread one by one: each states what its image shows. The logo alternatives, repeated on every page, follow accepted practice.
• Text presented as an image (1.8) — four images in the sample contain letters, and none is an image of text within the meaning of the criterion: two product photographs, where the letters are those of the jar label; one photograph of the shop interior, where the letters are those of the items on the shelves; and a QR code, an image by nature. The criterion targets text composed graphically for its appearance — a heading, a strapline, a promotional banner — not text appearing within a photographed scene. Checked image by image on 21 August 2026.
• Relevance of page titles (8.6) — twenty-one titles recorded, all unique; each identifies its page once the site name is removed.
• Relevance of field labels and group legends (11.2, 11.7) — the 105 fields across the sampled pages were recorded and reread. The labels state the data expected, including in the most delicate cases — “SIREN (optional — associations welcome)”, “SIRET number (mandatory for companies)”, “Chorus Pro identifier (public sector)”. The legends name the purpose of their group.
• Financial data entry (11.12) — the funnel was walked through: quantities editable in the cart, return to the cart possible from the payment page, summary before confirmation.
• The remaining human-judgement criteria (1.6, 1.7, 3.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.13, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 7.2, 10.2, 10.3, 10.9, 10.10, 12.3, 13.6, 13.11) were examined on the same day and proved either compliant or not applicable. The detail appears under “Compliant points” and in the list of non-applicable criteria.

⚠️ Known points of attention

The following limitations are known and acknowledged. They are not observed failures, but areas where our verification stops:

• Rendering tests with assistive technologies — not yet carried out
  The audit was conducted through: ① source code analysis (DOM, ARIA attributes, HTML semantics); ② automated tools and manual inspection; ③ real rendering in a browser, with on-screen measurement of contrast, focus, scrolling at 320 px, target size and keys actually pressed; ④ programmatic simulation of twelve assistive technology profiles.
  These automated checks cover 75 of the 106 RGAA criteria (approximately 71%) through at least one machine test; the remaining 31 criteria were prepared for human review, with the relevant page elements extracted and the question to be settled stated. A criterion that is “covered” is not a criterion that is “validated”: the RGAA breaks each criterion down into several tests, only some of which a tool automates. The proportion of criteria that are fully automatable is estimated by research at between 20% and 40%.
  Rendering tests with NVDA + Firefox and VoiceOver + Safari iOS, as recommended by the RGAA methodology, are scheduled for the first quarter of 2027.
• Text placed over an image or a gradient — contrast not measurable automatically
  Fifteen pieces of text on the site are placed over an image or a gradient. No tool can reliably calculate their contrast ratio, since the background colour varies from pixel to pixel. These will be checked manually during the first-quarter 2027 campaign.
• Purchase funnel — not completed end to end with an assistive technology
  Every field in the checkout funnel carries an associated label, and this has been verified. However, the complete journey — from cart to payment — has not been carried out by keyboard and with a screen reader: a tool cannot place an order. This is the most costly journey to get wrong, since it carries the transaction. It is the first item on the first-quarter 2027 campaign. In the meantime, any order may be placed by telephone on +33 6 49 88 78 38, at no additional cost.
• Page sample
  The assessment covers a sample of 15 pages selected from 200 pages crawled. It includes the 7 mandatory pages required by the RGAA and 8 pages representative of the site’s templates. A sample, however well constructed, proves nothing about the pages it does not contain.

🔧 Corrections made on 17 August 2026

The automated assessment of 17 August 2026 reported two failing criteria and two probable defects. All were addressed the same day:

• RGAA 11.3 — labels for fields of the same nature: the optional message field was labelled “Message” in the Partnership form and “Additional message” in the Quote form, for an identical function. Both now carry the same label. The Information, After-sales and Press forms keep a label specific to their purpose — “Your question”, “Description of the problem”, “Your request” — because there the field is the substance of the request rather than an addition: criterion 11.2 requires the label to say what to enter.
• RGAA 11.11 — reporting of input errors: the outcome of a newsletter subscription was displayed in a paragraph with no role, linked to no field. A rejected address returned the visitor to an apparently unchanged page. The message is now linked to the field by aria-describedby, carries role="alert" on rejection, and the field carries aria-invalid.
• RGAA 11.2 — relevance of the label: the field’s placeholder repeated its label word for word. It now shows the expected format, and input guidance has been linked to the field.
• RGAA 8.6 — distinct page titles: pages 2 onward of paginated lists reproduced the title of page 1 exactly — up to four pages sharing a single title. Each paginated page now carries its number. In addition, two product pages for the same item in two sizes produced the same title, because trimming to 70 characters removed precisely the weight that distinguished them: the product name is now preserved in full.
• RGAA 10.8 — hidden content correctly ignored by assistive technologies: flagged by the tool as requiring verification, this point was checked on the live site and found compliant. The three collapsible panels carry visibility:hidden when closed, and none of the 31 focusable elements they contain can be reached by keyboard.
• RGAA 13.7 — flashing effects: flagged as requiring verification, this point was checked and found compliant. No content on the site flashes more than three times per second.
• RGAA 9.1 and 8.2 — the home page’s main heading was empty: the <h1> contained a <p>, whereas a heading accepts phrasing content only. Faced with that forbidden tag, the HTML parsing algorithm closed the heading before it: every browser therefore built an empty <h1> followed by orphaned text. The home page had no main heading at all, and a screen reader announced “heading level 1” followed by nothing. The server was sending correct code; it was the parsing that undid it. Replaced with a <span>, which is valid phrasing content: the heading is restored in full.
• RGAA 5.5 — the cart table had no caption: its headers were correct (<th scope="col"> on all six columns), but there was no <caption>. A screen reader listing the tables on a page announces only their caption: this one presented itself as “table”, without saying what it was about. A caption intended for assistive technologies has been added.
• Translation quality: one entry in the Spanish catalogue rendered the word “Message” in Italian. Corrected.

🔧 Corrections made on 21 August 2026

The automated assessment of 21 August 2026 at 08:24 reported one failing criterion. It was dealt with the same day, along with two further points.

• RGAA 10.6 — links within a block of text: links written in page content — terms of sale, legal notices, privacy policy, delivery — carried the colour of their paragraph, with no underline and no distinct weight. Measured on screen: 1.12:1 contrast with the surrounding text, where the criterion requires 3:1 in the absence of another cue. Nothing set them apart. The same flaw affected the “Lost your password?” link on the sign-in page, which the stylesheet underlined on hover only — therefore never for keyboard users. Those links are now underlined, in ochre and semi-bold, across page content as well as account and checkout screens.
• WCAG 2.5.3 — visible label in the accessible name: a “Select options” button was found announcing “Select options for”, without the product name. The 18 August fix acted on the button arguments; it now acts on the product link itself, whatever path produced it.
• Links opening a new window: a “new window” mention was added to those produced by the theme — footer, contact page, contact dialogs, product sheet printing. This is good practice (WCAG 3.2.5, level AAA) rather than an RGAA 4.1.2 requirement: it does not enter the compliance rate.

📅 Schedule of upcoming audits

• Automated audit: continuous — HTML structure, contrast, ARIA semantics, keyboard navigation, security, performance.
• Next human audit with assistive technologies: first quarter of 2027 (NVDA + Firefox, VoiceOver + Safari iOS), covering actual rendering by screen reader, the only point still unverified.
• Next update of this statement: first quarter of 2027, or sooner if a significant fix is deployed.
• Expected change of framework: RGAA 5 and version 4.1.1 of the EN 301 549 standard are announced for the end of 2026. The two deadlines converge: the first-quarter 2027 campaign will therefore be conducted against the new framework from the outset, if it has been published by then, and will cover both screen reader rendering and the criteria that RGAA 5 adds or changes. Revising this statement against RGAA 4.1.2 and then revising it again a few weeks later against RGAA 5 would serve no purpose.

🔌 Third-party content

Some content is produced by third-party components whose internal code is beyond our control. We do not remove them from the compliance rate calculation. An exemption under article 3 of French decree no. 2019-768 covers content “neither funded nor developed” by the organisation and “not under its control”: choosing a provider that we pay for is our responsibility, even when its code is beyond our reach. A criterion is excluded from the calculation only if no content on the site engages it — which is not the case for any of the criteria concerned here, all of which are satisfied elsewhere on the site.

Our commitment regarding these components is therefore threefold: correct what is under our control, report defects to the vendor, and offer an accessible alternative.

• Payplug (WooCommerce extension) — the payment funnel and bank card forms are rendered inside iframe frames whose content we cannot modify. Elements under our control (focus styles, contrast of our own buttons) have been corrected. Accessible alternative: any order may be placed by telephone on +33 6 49 88 78 38, at no additional cost. The accessibility of the funnel is the subject of a request to the vendor.
• YITH WooCommerce Wishlist (v4.14+) — sharing function — sharing to social networks and by email is rendered entirely by the extension, so we have disabled this feature. The main “Add to wishlist” button, by contrast, is corrected by our theme (discriminating aria-label, aria-pressed) and is compliant.
• Gravatar (WordPress core) — product review avatars are loaded from gravatar.com; external loading and the text alternative are handled by the WordPress core.

📋 Legal framework and voluntary approach

Historic French framework (RGAA)
Digital accessibility is governed in France by article 47 of law no. 2005-102 of 11 February 2005, as amended by law no. 2018-771 of 5 September 2018, and by decree no. 2019-768 of 24 July 2019, which mandates the General Accessibility Improvement Framework. This regime applies to public law entities and to private companies whose annual turnover exceeds €250 million. Maison Louis does not fall within that scope on this basis.

European Accessibility Act — applicable since 28 June 2025
Directive (EU) 2019/882 on accessibility requirements for products and services — known as the European Accessibility Act (EAA) — became applicable on 28 June 2025. It was transposed into French law by ordinance no. 2023-859 of 6 September 2023. E-commerce is explicitly listed among the services covered. Existing services have until 28 June 2030 to comply; services launched since June 2025 must be compliant from publication.

Maison Louis’s position under the EAA
The EAA provides an exemption for microenterprises providing services: an enterprise employing fewer than 10 people and whose annual turnover or annual balance sheet total does not exceed €2 million (cumulative criteria). Maison Louis currently meets both conditions and is likely to benefit from this exemption. That position would change should the thresholds be modified or should the structure of the company change: this statement would then be updated.

Staff awareness
Article 8 of the EAA provides for staff awareness of accessibility requirements. No tool can establish this from outside the website: it is a matter of internal organisation. Maison Louis undertakes that anyone working on the site’s content — writing, adding products, adding images — is informed of the rules on text alternatives, heading hierarchy and contrast.

Voluntary approach
Independently of any legal obligation, Maison Louis pursues an active approach to improving the accessibility of its website, motivated by the conviction that every visitor — whatever their abilities or tools — must be able to reach our products and services. The technical requirements applied are those of RGAA 4.1.2 / WCAG 2.1 level AA / EN 301 549 v3.2.1.

🔬 Testing environment and evaluation method

In accordance with the requirements of the RGAA (§ Content of the statement):

• Method: analysis of the theme’s source code (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, PHP), supplemented by automated tools, by real rendering in a browser with on-screen measurements, and by manual functional testing on real browsers and devices.
• Consent banner: refused before any keyboard measurement, by activating the button that stores nothing. Without that refusal, measurements would apply to the dialog rather than to the page. All 15 sample pages were measured in a real browser.
• Principal audit tool: Audit PRO 2.5.8, Integrale Plus edition — real browser rendering, contrast measurement on the CSS served, keyboard navigation, simulation of twelve assistive technology profiles, JavaScript library monitoring.
• Complementary WCAG engine: axe-core 4.13.0 (Deque Systems, MPL-2.0 licence), used without modification. Its contrast rules are disabled in favour of a finer measurement that flattens transparencies and detects text placed over an image.
• Other tools: RGAA Checker v4.1.2, axe DevTools 4.x, Google Lighthouse 13.x, Web Developer 3.0.1, GTmetrix, the W3C validator, and manual inspection of the DOM and ARIA properties.
• HTML parsing: the lxml library, whose document reconstruction matches that of a browser — structural criteria therefore apply to the document as displayed.
• Desktop browsers tested: Firefox 149+ (Windows 10-11), Google Chrome 124+ (Windows 10, macOS Big Sur to Tahoe), Microsoft Edge 124+ (Windows 10-11, macOS), Safari 17 (macOS Sonoma to Tahoe).
• Mobile devices tested: iPhone 7+, 11, 12 and 16 (iOS 17 and 26; Safari, Firefox, Edge), several Android models (Chrome, Firefox) including Samsung Galaxy S20+, Xiaomi Mi 11 and Pixel 7 — covering screen widths from 360 px to 1430 px.
• Assistive technologies: the combinations recommended by the RGAA baseline (NVDA + Firefox, JAWS + Chrome, VoiceOver + Safari, TalkBack + Chrome Android) have not yet been used on the live site. All ARIA attributes have been verified through code analysis and by axe-core, and twelve assistive technology profiles have been simulated programmatically. This reservation is one of the two reasons for the “partially compliant” status.
• Page sample: 15 pages selected from 200 pages crawled, comprising the 7 mandatory RGAA pages — home, contact, authentication, legal notices, site map, help/FAQ, accessibility statement — and 8 pages representative of the site’s templates: category archive (133 pages of this template), product page (48 pages), editorial page (10 pages), translated page, news, wishlist, shop, privacy policy.
• Pages covered by the assessment :
  • Home : https://lamaisonlouis.fr
  • Contact : https://lamaisonlouis.fr/contact
  • My account (authentication) : https://lamaisonlouis.fr/mon-compte
  • Legal notices : https://lamaisonlouis.fr/mentions-legales
  • Site map : https://lamaisonlouis.fr/plan-du-site
  • Help / FAQ : https://lamaisonlouis.fr/faq
  • Accessibility statement : https://lamaisonlouis.fr/accessibilite
  • Category archive : https://lamaisonlouis.fr/categorie-produit/cave
  • Product page : https://lamaisonlouis.fr/boutique/cave/jus-de-fruits/jus-de-pomme
  • Editorial page : https://lamaisonlouis.fr/cgv
  • Translated page : https://lamaisonlouis.fr/en
  • News : https://lamaisonlouis.fr/actualites
  • Wishlist : https://lamaisonlouis.fr/liste-de-souhaits/
  • Shop : https://lamaisonlouis.fr/boutique
  • Privacy policy : https://lamaisonlouis.fr/politique-de-confidentialite
• Dates: initial audit April-May 2026; most recent automated assessment on 21 August 2026 at 08:24.

🛠️ Technologies used

• HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript ES6+ — bespoke theme, no third-party CSS framework
• WordPress 6.9+, PHP 8.4, WooCommerce 10.7+, YITH WooCommerce Wishlist 4.14+, Polylang
• Playfair Display, Lora and Source Sans 3 typefaces, hosted locally (no requests to Google Fonts)