You have the audit. What you're missing is someone to fix it.
I don't compete with your auditor. I take their findings list and deliver merged pull requests.
Two ways in
You already have an audit
Access42, Temesis, Ideance, Adimeo, Boscop, Axénum, or an internal audit — I implement. Send me the list of non-conformities; I turn it into merged pull requests in your React / Next.js code.
You're an audit firm
Subcontracted React / Next.js remediation. You sign the audit and the déclaration d'accessibilité; I close the findings in the code, under your brand or mine. You stay the auditor — I'm not in your market, I'm your implementation subcontractor.
The three findings I close
The modal no one can escape
No focus trap, focus not restored on close, Escape inert, background not `inert`, role="dialog" / aria-modal missing. One primitive fixed usually closes ~15 instances.
- Detection
- Mouse unplugged, open it, Tab ×8, watch where you land.
- Effort
- 2–4 days
The checkout that demands a mouse
A `<div>` standing in for a select, labels associated visually only, errors with no aria-describedby and no live region — the screen-reader user submits and nothing is announced.
- Detection
- Place an order with the keyboard alone, then with a screen reader. Time it.
- Effort
- 4–8 days
The SPA that announces nothing
Next.js client-side navigation: document title not updated, focus left on the unmounted link or dropped silently onto `<body>`, a skip link that no longer resolves after routing. A generalist auditor writes « titre de page non mis à jour — non conforme » and stops, because fixing it means understanding the App Router render cycle. That's exactly the step most firms don't climb — and the one I deliver.
- Detection
- Navigate between two routes by keyboard, listen to the screen reader on page change, check the document title and the focus target after routing.
- Effort
- 2–3 days
The deliverable format
Every deliverable opens on this header
- PÉRIMÈTRE
- the gabarits and journeys actually covered.
- RÉFÉRENTIEL
- RGAA 4.1.2 (106 criteria), aligned on WCAG 2.1 AA; EN 301 549 v3.2.1 as the harmonised standard the directive points to.
- ÉCHANTILLON
- gabarits selected, DINUM method.
- DATE ET ENVIRONNEMENT
- browser, assistive technology, versions.
- MÉTHODE
- keyboard, screen reader, focus, forms — manual review, not an automated-scanner dump.
Section A — confirmed non-conformities
Binary, reproducible, tied to a numbered RGAA criterion, evidence artefact, remediation PR, re-test result.
Section B — risk observations
Depends on a judgement call, flagged as contested, its case-by-case source cited, ending with « la qualification juridique relève de votre conseil ».
Section B is never promoted into Section A.
Performance deepening (INP, main thread): +2–3 days, same daily rate.
Case law — contested
- TJ Caen, 4 June 2026 (Carrefour) — the first French e-commerce decision: RGAA remediation of the site ordered within 6 months, under a €500-per-day penalty for delay, plus €10,000 in damages.
- TJ Lille, 5 May 2026 (Auchan) — the opposite outcome, decided on a threshold question.
Contested, unsettled case law: these decisions do not determine your situation. Legal characterisation is for your counsel.
Track record
18 months at Storengy (ENGIE Group): rebuilt critical features of an enterprise application used daily by hundreds of users, cutting page-load and form-submission latency.
I had the pleasure of working with Mickael at Storengy (Engie Group), where he quickly proved to be an outstanding addition to our development team.
From day one, Mickael integrated seamlessly into the team. His adaptability and collaborative mindset made it feel like he had been with us for years. Beyond his excellent interpersonal skills, his technical abilities are truly impressive — he is a versatile full-stack developer with a particularly strong expertise on the frontend side, and a remarkably broad command of modern web technologies.
What sets Mickael apart is the rare combination of autonomy, initiative, and speed without ever compromising on quality. He delivers fast, and he delivers well. I entrusted him with significant responsibilities on a key project, and he rose to the occasion — the application he worked on is now used daily by hundreds of users across the organization.
He also stands out for his ability to truly understand client expectations and translate them into creative, pragmatic solutions that hit the mark. On top of that, he is always eager to learn and genuinely committed to sharing knowledge with his teammates, making everyone around him better in the process.
I wholeheartedly recommend Mickael. He is an undeniable asset for any team tackling serious projects that demand both top-tier technical skills and strong human qualities. Any organization would be lucky to have him.
The boundary of my responsibility
Whether the EAA applies to your organisation, and from what date, is a legal determination for your counsel — not something this page decides.
I document observed behaviour, on a named date, against a named referential (RGAA 4.1.2, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 Art. 50, CNIL délibération 2020-091). I do not characterise conformity and I sign no declaration — the déclaration d'accessibilité is signed by the publisher, on the DINUM template.
Engagement under obligation de moyens, not obligation de résultat. This is not legal advice; legal characterisation is for your counsel.
Send me your auditor's findings list.
I'll tell you which ones I close in a single PR.
Send the findings listPrefer to talk it through? Book a 30-min call (opens in new tab)