credit-agricole.fr
readable, with friction
C Acceptable. Readable, but working against you
Loading speed is diagnostic only; it does not affect this grade or search ranking.
| Subject | Weight | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Interruption | 35.71% | 65 |
| Readability | 28.57% | 77 |
| Accessibility and keyboard | 21.43% | 75 |
| Stability and weight | 14.29% | 90 |
This letter rests on 100% of the grade. Every subject was measured, including article readability and accessibility. How this is worked out.
- Largest paint
- 9.5s
- Paywall
- none
- Ad requests
- 0
- Tracker requests
- 1
- Page weight
- 1.9 MB
- Readability
- 14px type · 1.5 line height · 72 characters per line · 16.2:1 contrast
- Accessibility
- 3 automated checks failed (2 serious)
- Green hosting
- not measured
- Measured
- 2026-09-25
Observed interruptions
Ad and tracker counts above are network requests, not counts of visible ads or separate companies. They do not affect the interruption score.
Assessed 1 sampled page. The largest detected ad area was 0% of a sampled viewport. Verified prompts: Cookie dialog blocks the page, with no refuse button.
This is a sample, not a promise that the whole site has no interruptions. Ad detection can miss formats and content outside the sampled view. Older scans did not check visibility or overlapping ad rectangles as thoroughly. The score uses the strongest observed deduction, so one panel is not penalized under multiple names. How interruptions are scored.
The type, and who can use it
Measured on 1 rendered page; latest measurement 2026-09-25. Every number is a mechanical fact about the page, not a judgment of its design.
| What | Measured | The bar |
|---|---|---|
| Body type size | 14px | 16px, the browser default |
| Characters per line | 72 | 45–90 |
| Line height | 1.50 | 1.5 (WCAG 1.4.8) |
| Text contrast | 16.2:1 | 4.5:1 (WCAG AA), 7:1 (AAA) |
| Text column | 45% of the window | at least 45% |
| Reflows at phone width | yes | WCAG 1.4.10 |
| Dark mode | no | noted, not scored |
| Automated accessibility checks | 3 automated checks failed (2 serious): aria-input-field-name, aria-valid-attr-value, meta-viewport | WCAG 2.1 A and AA, via axe-core |
| Keyboard | no trap; focus visible on 100% of stops | never trapped, always visible |
| Structure | main landmark, 2 h1, no skipped heading levels | a main landmark, one h1, no skips |
| Alt text | no content images | every content image |
| Reader mode | parses | parses (Firefox’s Readability) |
Automated accessibility checks catch an estimated 30–40% of real problems, so “no automated violations detected” is a floor, not a certificate. We never say “accessible”. How these are scored.
Recorded automated findings
| Recorded behavior | Policy cost | Use in this grade |
|---|---|---|
| Cookie dialog blocks the page, with no refuse button | 0.35 | Strongest verified cost only |
These records are retained for inspection. Only verified interruption evidence contributes to that subject; uncertain records are not silently treated as clean. Metering keeps its separate grade cap. These costs are not currently applied as search-ranking multipliers.
Measurement dates
Oldest evidence 25 days old. Dates refer to the evidence, never the card rebuild.
- Access and interruptions:
- Readability and accessibility:
Measurement history
Newest 2 saved observations. Each describes a sampled page at that time; older, failed or held observations do not override the current reviewed card. Raw automated findings may have been superseded by later review or detector replay. No previous grade is inferred.
Read dated observations
- — Readability and accessibility observation; prose source p; desktop type 14px; phone overflow not observed
https://www.credit-agricole.fr/particulier/conseils/magazine/tout-un-mag/celibataire-comment-ventiler-votre-budget-de-2000-euros-pour-l-optimiser.html
Evidence source: readability-top-sites-credit-agricole.fr.jsonl · observation adba68c80e1a - — Access observation: penalised; raw automated findings consent wall
https://www.credit-agricole.fr/particulier/conseils/magazine/tout-un-mag/celibataire-comment-ventiler-votre-budget-de-2000-euros-pour-l-optimiser.html
Evidence source: refresh-333c616e-f073-4c41-988c-ff79775945a4.jsonl · observation 6cf3f2d3258d
How we know
| Pages rendered | 1 |
|---|---|
| Site verdict | errors dropped; majority of remaining; ties to the stricter verdict; active reviewed exclusions override admission |
| Figures shown | numeric measurements generally use medians; interruption costs, overflow, keyboard traps and accessibility failures retain the strongest observed finding |
| Cited by | 1 encyclopedia article |
Think this is wrong? It may well be — the measurements cover only a handful of pages. Any reviewed admission decision and its dated evidence are shown above. Re-measurement on request is not built yet, so there is no button here that would do anything. When it exists it will be free and it will be on this page.