Menu
Close
Digital accessibility is about considering the needs of people with disabilities when designing digital products and services (websites, apps, etc.).
Accessibility standards consider the needs of people with impaired vision, hearing, motor skills, or intellectual, cognitive or mental capacity.
Checking that a website complies with the French Référentiel général d’amélioration de l’accessibilité (RGAA) accessibility standard is about ensuring that the online service being assessed is compatible with the assistance technologies used by disabled people. Examples include a screen reader and/or Braille display for blind people, a voice-operated system for people with motor disabilities, etc.
An accessible website allows people with disabilities to easily access its content and functionalities. For example, an accessible site makes it possible to:
To achieve this, the site must comply with the standards that are in force when it is developed and updated.
Here at MHR, we take particular care to ensure that our online services are accessible to as many people as possible, in accordance with Article 47 of Act no. 2005-102 of 11 February 2005 and international recommendations on digital accessibility (WCAG 2.1 levels A and AA).
This accessibility statement applies to the www.MHR.com website, which is to be rendered accessible gradually during the second half of 2023.
MHR galvanised all of its teams to achieve optimum accessibility of its services portal so as to meet the expectations of its web users, whether or not they have a disability.
With an approach based on the RGAA reference framework (https://accessibilite.numerique.gouv.fr/methode/criteres-et-tests/), the website will be optimised to feature, not least:
The website https://MHR.com/ does not comply with the French référentiel général d’amélioration de l’accessibilité (RGAA) accessibility standard. The instances of non-compliance and exemptions are listed below.
The conformity audit carried out by Franck Letrouvé (pixFL) shows that 35% of the RGAA criteria are met. This percentage can be broken down as follows:
1.1 – Does every image conveying information have alternative text?
1.2 – Is every image for decorative purposes disregarded by assistance technologies as it should be?
1.3 – For every image conveying information with alternative text, is this alternative text relevant (bar special cases)?
3.1 – In every web page, the information must not be given only by colour. Is this rule being obeyed?
3.2 – In every web page, is the contrast between the text colour and the background colour high enough (bar special cases)?
3.3 – In every web page, are the colours used in interface components or graphic design elements conveying information contrasting enough (bar special cases)?
4.1 – Where necessary, does every pre-recorded temporal media file have a text transcription or audiodescription (bar special cases)?
4.3 – Where necessary, does every pre-recorded synchronised temporal media file have synchronised subtitles (bar special cases)?
4.11 – Where necessary, can the viewing of every temporal media file be controlled via the keyboard and any pointer control device?
6.1 – Is every link explicit (bar special cases)?
7.1 – Where necessary, is every script compatible with assistance technologies?
7.3 – Can every script be controlled via the keyboard and any pointer control device (bar special cases)?
7.4 – For every script that initiates a change of context, is the user notified or does the user have control over it?
8.2 – For every web page, is the code source generated valid according to the type of document specified (bar special cases)?
8.6 – For every web page with a page title, is this title relevant?
8.7 – In every web page, is every language switch indicated in the source code (bar special cases)?
8.9 – In every web page, tags must not be used only for presentation purposes. Is this rule being obeyed?
9.1 – In every web page, is the information structured by the appropriate use of titles?
9.2 – In every web page, is the structure of the document coherent (bar special cases)?
9.3 – In every web page, is every list correctly structured?
9.4 – In every web page, is every quote correctly indicated?
10.4 – In every web page, does the text remain legible when the font size is increased to at least 200% (bar special cases)?
10.7 – In every web page, for every element receiving focus, is the focus box visible?
10.9 – In every web page, information must not be given only by shape, size or position. Is this rule being obeyed?
10.10 – In every web page, information must not be given only by shape, size or position. Is this rule being implemented in a relevant manner?
11.1 – Does every form field have a label?
11.2 – Is every label associated with a form field relevant (bar special cases)?
11.3 – In every form, is every label associated with a form field with the same function and repeated several times on the same page or on a set of pages coherent?
11.5 – In every form, are fields of a similar nature grouped together, where necessary?
11.7 – In every form, is every caption associated with a grouping of fields of a similar nature relevant?
11.9 – In every form, is the heading of each button relevant (bar special cases)?
11.10 – In every form, is the data entry check being used in a relevant manner (bar special cases)?
11.11 – In every form, where necessary, does the data entry check come with suggestions to facilitate correction of data entry errors?
11.13 – Can the purpose of a data entry field be worked out to facilitate autofill of the fields with the user’s data?
12.2 – On each set of pages, are the menu and browser bars always in the same place (bar special cases)?
12.6 – Can the zones grouping together content on several web pages (header, main browser, main content, footer and search engine zones) be compromised or avoided?
12.8 – On every web page, is the tabulation order coherent?
12.11 – On every web page, is the additional content that appears when hovering, focussing or activating an interface component reachable via the keyboard, where necessary?
13.1 – For every web page, does the user have control over every time limit modifying the content (bar special cases)?
13.3 – On every web page, does every document file available to download have an accessible version, where necessary (bar special cases)?
Third-party content who is neither financed nor developed by the organisation concerned and which are not under its control (e.g. online context and youtube player);
Files available in file formats published before 23 September 2018, unless they are necessary for the completion of an administrative formality falling within the remit of the organisation concerned;
Pre-recorded audio and video content, including that featuring interactive components published before 23 September 2020;
This declaration was drawn up on 7 August 2023.
The web page tests were carried out using the following combinations of web browsers and screen readers:
Under Article 11 of the Act of February 2005, disabled people are entitled to compensation for the consequences of their disability, whatever the cause and nature of their impairment, their age or their lifestyle.
This means that all organisations are under an obligation to take the necessary steps to provide access, within a reasonable timeframe, to the information and functionalities sought by disabled people. This applies regardless of whether the content is covered by an exemption.
If you are unable to access any content or service, you may contact the MHR website controller, who can direct you to an accessible alternative or give you the content in a different format.
Such a procedure should be used in the following scenario:
You have notified the Digital Accessibility Officer of an accessibility problem that is preventing you from accessing the MHR website or any of its content and you have not received a satisfactory response.
Send a message to the Human Rights Defender: https://formulaire.defenseurdesdroits.
Contact the Human Rights Defender’s representative for your region: https://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/saisir/delegues
Send a letter (free of charge, do not affix a stamp) to the following address: Défenseur des droits – Libre réponse 71120 – 75342 Paris CEDEX 07
