Pilot wave 01
Major French cities and metropolitan authorities observed through their public digital-accessibility signals.
Insight & accessibility
French Web Accessibility Observatory
12 websites observed, 11 statements located.
A public, dated and cautious reading of digital-accessibility signals published by major French cities and metropolitan authorities.
- Wave 01 published
- 12 websites
- 11 statements
- RGAA 4.1.2
- June 23, 2026
Key facts from Edikka’s Accessibility Observatory
Statements located
Eleven RGAA accessibility statements recorded in the documentary review dated June 23, 2026.
Partially compliant
The most frequent status published by the observed websites, generally with a stated rate.
Not located
One website exposes accessibility services, but no digital RGAA statement was located during this review.
1. Purpose
The Observatory makes public accessibility evidence easier to understand. This first wave does not replace a complete RGAA audit: it observes simple, dated and verifiable public signals.
It shows how to read an accessibility statement without overinterpreting a score and creates reusable evidence for decision-makers, web teams and AI assistants.
The WebAIM Million 2026 found automatically detectable WCAG errors on 95.9% of analysed homepages. The Observatory therefore distinguishes a public signal, an audit and compliance.
2. Principles
No casual compliance claims
A Lighthouse or WAVE score does not prove full RGAA compliance.
No gratuitous blame
The Observatory makes gaps understandable, prioritised and repairable.
No score without context
Every interpretation states date, reviewed pages, tools, limitations and reservations.
Accessibility and trust
Accessible pages are clearer for people, search engines and AI assistants.
3. Review method
Pilot wave 01 is deliberately documentary: homepage, accessibility link, statement, published status, displayed rate, contact and remedy information. Keyboard, screen-reader and component testing is reserved for enhanced waves or private assessments.
- The homepage was reviewed for a public accessibility entry point.
- Status and rate were recorded only when published in the statement.
- Contact and remedy information were observed without testing response time.
- A statement not located was recorded as such.
Important limitation: this wave does not judge actual compliance. It reports a documentary review dated June 23, 2026.
4. Observed signals
| Signal | What is observed | Acknowledged limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Public link | An accessibility link or entry point is visible from the homepage or footer. | The label may refer to a user service rather than an RGAA accessibility statement. |
| Statement | An accessibility statement page was located and is publicly available. | Publishing a statement does not guarantee the accessibility of real user journeys. |
| Status | A published status: fully compliant, partially compliant, non-compliant or not located. | The status comes from the statement published by the observed organisation. |
| Rate | An RGAA rate or score made public in the statement when available. | Rates require caution: scope, date and method may differ. |
| Contact and remedy | Reporting channels, an accessibility contact or a remedy procedure are visible. | This review does not test response quality or processing time. |
5. Pilot wave 01: major French cities
The objective is not to publish a ranking, but to show what was visible, citable and verifiable from public pages on the observation date.
websites observed
Declared public status in the dated review.
statements located
Declared public status in the dated review.
partially compliant
Declared public status in the dated review.
fully compliant
Declared public status in the dated review.
non-compliant
Declared public status in the dated review.
not located
Declared public status in the dated review.
| Observed website | Public signal | Published status | Published rate | Edikka interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parisparis.fr | Accessibility: partially compliant | Partially compliant | 53.52% | Statement located; the source also publishes an average rate of 77.19%. |
| Marseillemarseille.fr | Accessibility service / Acceo | Not located | Not published | Footer, sitemap and disability-accessibility page checked; no digital RGAA statement was located during this review. |
| Lyonlyon.fr | Accessibility statement | Partially compliant | 81.03% | Statement located; the source also publishes an average rate of 95.17%. |
| Toulouse Métropolemetropole.toulouse.fr | Accessibility: partially compliant | Partially compliant | 97.30% | Statement located; contact and remedy information visible. |
| Nicenice.fr | Accessibility: partially compliant | Partially compliant | 99.00% | Statement located; contact and remedy information visible. |
| Nantes Métropolemetropole.nantes.fr | Accessibility: partially compliant | Partially compliant | 75.00% | Statement located; the source also publishes an average rate of 93%. |
| Strasbourgstrasbourg.eu | Accessibility: partially compliant | Partially compliant | 91.40% | Statement located; the source also publishes an average rate of 98.6%. |
| Montpelliermontpellier.fr | Accessibility: partially accessible website | Partially compliant | 82.67% | Statement located; contact and remedy information visible. |
| Bordeauxbordeaux.fr | Accessibility: partially compliant | Partially compliant | 95.08% | Statement located; contact and remedy information visible. |
| Lillelille.fr | Accessibility: non-compliant | Non-compliant | 36.67% | Statement located; contact and remedy information visible. |
| Rennes Métropolemetropole.rennes.fr | Accessibility | Partially compliant | 84.10% | Statement located; the source also publishes an average rate of 95.2%. |
| Grenoblegrenoble.fr | Accessibility: fully compliant | Fully compliant | 100.00% | Statement located; contact and remedy information visible. |
The downloadable files remain in French and are identical to the data.gouv.fr publication. View the edition history.
The panel is exploratory and not representative of France. This dated review does not describe the websites’ current state.
6. Publication rules
The Observatory must remain understandable, useful and precise enough to avoid confusing a public signal with compliance.
| Rule | Application |
|---|---|
| Method before ranking | The protocol, limitations and scope are explained before results. |
| Dated results | Every wave states its date, tools and reviewed pages. |
| Constructive interpretation | Findings help teams prioritise remediation. |
| No inflated compliance claim | A public signal never replaces a complete RGAA audit or statement. |
7. How to read future results
Results separate what is certain, probable and still requires human qualification.
- Confirmed error: reproducible and directly actionable.
- Weak signal: requires human review.
- Methodological reservation: limited by scope, tool or environment.
- Visible good practice: improves trust, readability or access.
A published statement, rate or remedy procedure is good documentary practice, not independent validation of compliance.
8. Sources and references
The pilot wave relies on official statements and public pages recorded in the original dataset.
9. Suggest a website or request an assessment
An organisation may suggest a website, request a private review or launch an RGAA/EAA accessibility assessment. The goal is not a decorative badge, but prioritising issues that genuinely affect users.
Email agence@edikka.com or use the contact page.
FAQ
Questions that prevent misleading interpretations
Public observation, complete RGAA audit, private review and commercial request are different things.
Does the Observatory replace a complete RGAA audit?
No. The Observatory reads public signals. A complete RGAA audit requires human testing, representative pages, assistive technologies and criterion-by-criterion verification.
Why publish the rates declared by the websites?
Because these rates are public, dated and verifiable in accessibility statements. Edikka records them without recalculating them or turning them into an automatic ranking.
Does a lower rate mean a website is less accessible?
Not necessarily. A lower rate may reflect a broader, stricter or more recent audit. It must be read together with scope, date, non-compliant criteria and exempt content.
Why combine cities and metropolitan authorities?
This is an exploratory documentary panel, not a statistically representative or perfectly homogeneous institutional sample.
What happens if I suggest a website?
A suggestion may inform a future wave. A dedicated accessibility assessment is required for a private review or remediation plan.
View “French web-accessibility observatory · pilot wave 01” in the Edikka Instrument Libraryv1.1.0 · CC BY 4.0
French web-accessibility observatory · pilot wave 01
Read an accessibility statement within its dated scope.
Preview, files and citation
Inside the instrument
| Site | Published state | Declared rate |
|---|---|---|
| Paris | Partiellement conforme | 53,52 % critères RGAA |
| Marseille | Non détecté | Not recorded |
| Lyon | Partiellement conforme | 81,03 % |
Read the original file — French web-accessibility observatory · pilot wave 01 · v1.1.0 · original excerpt in French
Dated observations from this edition; these are not a new assessment of the current sites.
Cite this version
Edikka (2026). French web-accessibility observatory · pilot wave 01 (v1.1.0). https://www.edikka.com/en/insights/accessibility-observatory#library-source-accessibility-observatory-wave-01. Accessed 2026-10-11. CC BY 4.0.
Version history from the instrument
- v1.1.0 · 2026-09-10 Documented edition of the 23 June 2026 observations: numeric rates, dictionary, schema and provenance. No new collection. Version 1.0 remains available at its original URLs.
Interpretation limit. Observation of public declarative signals: this dataset is neither an RGAA audit nor an exhaustive conformance assessment.
Find “French web-accessibility observatory · pilot wave 01” in the Edikka Instrument Library