Is the “site map” page relevant?
A user who doesn't know your site, whether visually impaired, cognitively impaired, or simply lost, relies on the site map to understand the overall architecture and navigate directly to the section they're interested in. If this map lists sections that have disappeared, links that return a 404, or titles that no longer correspond to destination pages, it no longer fulfills its role. An outdated map serves nobody.
This criterion verifies three things: that the map faithfully represents the site's architecture (no need to be exhaustive), that each link works, and that each link points to the announced page. A single non-compliance on one of the three tests invalidates the criterion.
A site map does not have to list every page. It must reflect the main structure: sections, subsections, key areas. Pages accessible from the homepage of a section or catalog do not need to be listed individually. Too deep or too exhaustive, the map becomes unusable for the users it's meant to help.
3 tests to confirm that a site map is available
Site map representative of general architecture
- Open the site map page.
- Compare its structure with the site's actual architecture: first-level sections, significant subsections, main areas.
- Verify that the major sections of the site are represented.
- Detail pages (articles, product cards) accessible from a section page do not need to be listed: their absence is not a non-compliance.
- If the map reflects the general architecture, the test is validated. If entire sections are missing or if the map's structure is inconsistent with the site's, the test fails.
Functionality of all site map links
- Open the site map page.
- Verify each link: click on it or inspect their URLs in developer tools.
- Check that no link returns an HTTP error (404, 403, 500) or leads to a blank page.
- If all links lead to a correctly loaded page, the test is validated. A single non-functional link is enough to invalidate the test.
Site map links up-to-date and consistent with destination
- Open the site map page.
- For each link, click and verify that the destination page's title matches the link's title in the map.
- Identify obsolete titles: former name of a renamed section, removed section still listed, link redirected to content different from what is announced.
- If all links are consistent between their title and destination, and none point to obsolete content, the test is validated.
Examples
❌ Non-compliant : Site map with obsolete links and missing section
<nav aria-label="Site map">
<ul>
<li><a href="/home">Home</a></li>
<li>
<a href="/our-offers">Our offers</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="/our-offers/starter">Starter Offer</a></li>
<li><a href="/our-offers/pro">Pro Offer</a></li>
<!-- Page removed during last redesign -->
<li><a href="/our-offers/enterprise-legacy">Enterprise Offer</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<!-- The Blog section, present in the main menu, is absent -->
<li><a href="/contact">Contact</a></li>
</ul>
</nav>Two cumulative non-compliances: the "Enterprise Offer" link points to a removed page (404 response), which invalidates test 12.3.2. And the Blog section, accessible from the main menu, is not represented in the map, which invalidates test 12.3.1. A user relying on this map to discover the site completely misses an existing section.
✅ Compliant : Representative site map, functional and up-to-date links
<nav aria-label="Site map">
<ul>
<li><a href="/">Home</a></li>
<li>
<a href="/our-offers">Our offers</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="/our-offers/starter">Starter Offer</a></li>
<li><a href="/our-offers/pro">Pro Offer</a></li>
<li><a href="/our-offers/teams">Teams Offer</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<a href="/blog">Blog</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="/blog/accessibility">Accessibility</a></li>
<li><a href="/blog/tutorials">Tutorials</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="/about">About</a></li>
<li><a href="/contact">Contact</a></li>
<li><a href="/legal-notice">Legal Notice</a></li>
</ul>
</nav>The map reflects the site's main architecture: all top-level sections are present, significant subsections are listed. Individual blog articles are not included: they are accessible from their category page, which is explicitly authorized by the note in criterion 12.3.1. All links are functional and their titles match the destination page titles.
Tips and pitfalls
⚠️ Update the sitemap.xml but forget the site map page
During a redesign, teams think to regenerate the sitemap.xml for search engines but forget the HTML site map page visible to users. These two resources are completely independent. Criterion 12.3 applies only to the HTML site map page, not to the XML file used by indexing robots.
⚠️ A functional link can still fail test 12.3.3
After an editorial redesign, a "Resources" section is renamed "Documentation". If the map keeps the old title, the link returns a 200 and passes test 12.3.2. But it fails test 12.3.3: the title no longer matches the destination page's title. Functional and up-to-date are two distinct verifications.
⚠️ Pages restricted to logged-in users
For a site with sections accessible only after login, the site map can mention them with an explicit indication such as "Login required". The user understands that additional content exists without encountering an unexpected 403 error. The approach to avoid: list these pages without warning and let the user discover the blocking after clicking.
💡 An exhaustive map harms navigation
RGAA explicitly states that a map "too complex or too deep is not recommended". Listing 300 URLs in the site map doesn't facilitate navigation: it drowns it. Target sections and subsections of the first and second level. It is the general structure that matters, not the complete inventory.
⚠️ Web application without distinct page structure
For a web application like a client area or SaaS tool, the site map in the editorial sense may not apply if the interface consists of screens rather than distinct URL pages. In RGAA audit, first check if criterion 12.1 (two navigation systems) applies: if the site falls under special circumstances, 12.3 may also be non-applicable.
Frequently asked questions
Which pages must obligatorily appear in the site map according to RGAA?
None. RGAA is explicit: pages accessible from the homepage of a section or catalog do not need to be listed individually. The site map represents the general structure, not a complete inventory. What matters: that the major sections of the site are present and that the map's structure allows understanding the site's organization.
How to audit test 12.3.2 without manually clicking each link?
Use a link checker like Screaming Frog, the Chrome extension "Check My Links", or the command-line tool broken-link-checker. Point them to the site map page URL. They return the HTTP status code of each link in seconds. A 200 return is functional; 404, 403, or 500 constitute non-compliance. Beware false positives: a custom error page that returns a 200 code will pass the tool test but fail manual inspection.
Why can a CMS-generated site map fail to meet RGAA requirements?
Rarely, without verification. WordPress or Drupal plugins often generate a list including orphaned pages, old drafts published by mistake, or URLs not removed after migration. Frequent audit result: links to 404s (test 12.3.2) or titles that no longer match destination pages (test 12.3.3). Automatic generation requires regular manual review, at minimum after each redesign.
Why can a 301 redirect be considered a functional link according to RGAA?
Yes, if the redirect leads to the expected page. A 301 redirect to the correct page is acceptable: the link is functional and up-to-date. However, a redirect to the homepage or to a generic "content not found" page (even if it returns a 200 code) fails tests 12.3.2 and 12.3.3. Check the destination content, not just the HTTP code.
Why should the site map page appear in the site map for RGAA?
Criterion 12.3 does not require it. It is criterion 12.4 that verifies the link to the site map is placed identically on each page of the site. If you choose to list the site map page in itself, ensure this link is functional (test 12.3.2) and its title matches the page (test 12.3.3). Its absence from the map is not a non-compliance under 12.3.