A patient is looking for a sheet on the side effects of a treatment. He types a word into the site’s search bar, gets an error page, goes back, clicks on three successive menus, and then gives up. This scenario repeats daily on health sites whose structure has been designed by developers, not by users.
Navigating easily on a health site requires a navigation plan designed based on the actual journeys of visitors, not from the internal organizational chart of the structure.
Regulatory Accessibility and Navigation on a Health Site
Ergonomics is often discussed as an aesthetic choice. On a health site, it is primarily a legal obligation. The RGAA 4.1.2 reference currently governs keyboard navigation, contrasts, text alternatives, and form structuring for public websites and large health organizations.
An RGAA 5, expected by the end of 2026, will align the French framework with WCAG 2.2 standards. It will extend obligations to native mobile applications and downloadable office documents (PDF, Word). For a health site that offers patient sheets in PDF or appointment forms, this means that the navigation journey between the site, the application, and the documents must be fully accessible.
Sanctions are no longer theoretical. Fines of up to 50,000 euros per non-compliant online service are planned, repeatable every six months. Sometimes, we consult the Sante Pratique site map to see what a readable structure looks like that facilitates visitor orientation from the homepage.
Building a clear navigation plan is therefore not a UX bonus. It is a protection against a concrete financial risk and a condition for people with disabilities to actually access health content.
Health Site Map: Structuring the Tree by Patient Needs
Most health sites organize their menus by type of content: news, disease sheets, directory, professional space. This division reflects the internal logic of the publisher. A visitor, however, arrives with a specific intention: to understand a symptom, find a practitioner, verify a reimbursement.
Starting from the Search Intent, Not the Category
A clear plan relies on thematic entries formulated as questions or actions. “Understand my diagnosis,” “Find a specialist near me,” “Prepare for my consultation” are more effective entry points than “Pathologies A-Z” or “Documentary Resources.”
Clarity is gained when the main menu is limited to five or six entries. Beyond that, the visitor hesitates and navigation becomes an obstacle. Subcategories then unfold progressively, without overloading the first level.
The Breadcrumb and Cross Links
The breadcrumb remains an underutilized marker. On a health site, it allows the visitor to know exactly where they are in the structure and to go up a level without returning to the homepage. Combined with cross links between related sheets (for example, from a symptom sheet to a treatment sheet), it creates an internal network that reduces the number of clicks needed.
Some structuring elements to integrate into a health site navigation plan:
- A main menu limited to five or six entries formulated around patient needs, not internal categories
- A visible breadcrumb on every page, including on mobile, so the visitor always knows where they are
- A “site map” page accessible from the footer, listing all sections and subsections hierarchically
- Contextual links between related sheets to avoid systematic returns to the menu
Mobile Navigation and Internal Search: The Two Recurring Weak Points
On the majority of health sites we have observed, mobile navigation poses a specific problem. The hamburger menu hides the structure. The visitor does not see the subcategories until they click, which lengthens the journey and increases drop-offs.
An internal search field visible as soon as the mobile site opens partially compensates for this problem. The search should tolerate typos and offer suggestions from the first letters. On a health site, medical terms are often misspelled by visitors: “tendinopathy,” “fibromyalgia,” “hypothyroidism” generate variants that the engine must anticipate.
Testing Navigation with Real Users
Feedback varies on this point, but there is often a gap between what the designer considers intuitive and what the visitor actually perceives. A user test, even informal (five people are enough to identify major blockages), reveals invisible dead ends in the structure.
Asking a tester to find specific information in less than three clicks provides a reliable indicator. If the person fails or hesitates, the navigation plan needs to be revised for that journey.
Document Compliance and Continuity of the Navigation Journey
An overlooked aspect concerns downloadable documents. Many health sites offer patient sheets, prevention guides, or forms in PDF format. When these documents are not tagged for accessibility, the navigation journey breaks at the moment of download.
With the arrival of RGAA 5, PDFs and office documents will have to meet the same accessibility requirements as web pages. An untagged PDF, without a title structure or text alternatives for images, will become a point of non-compliance in its own right.
In practical terms, this means that the navigation plan does not stop at HTML pages. It also encompasses downloadable resources, integrated forms, and any connected spaces (patient area, secure messaging). Each transition between these elements must remain smooth and identifiable.
- Ensure that each PDF offers a clickable table of contents and structured titles
- Ensure that online forms remain usable via keyboard, without a mouse
- Provide a clear return link from each document or connected space to the main site
A well-constructed navigation plan on a health site is not limited to a nice menu. It covers the structure, internal search, mobile, documents, and regulatory compliance. Regularly testing it with users remains the most direct method to identify what is blocking, before a visitor or an audit does it for you.
