An agency delivering Arabic work for clients
Show clients Arabic work that is right, not just translated
You are asked to warrant Arabic quality on work your client will review in a language half your team does not read. These are the checks that let you show the work rather than describe it, and what to hand a client at the end of it.
- Delivery
- Automated scan
- Measured at
- three breakpoints
- To try it
- Free, one page
client-site.example/ar- R030Direction-sensitive physical properties without an RTL override
- R051Letter-spacing applied to Arabic text (breaks the connected script)
- R021Unisolated bidi hazards: phones, emails, Latin tokens inside Arabic text
- R040Document-level horizontal overflow
Same 25 pages at desktop, tablet, mobile · report link expires, scope printed on it
The problem
What breaks
With the mechanism, not a category, and the check that catches each one.
Nobody on the review call can read the thing being reviewed
The client's Arabic reviewer finds problems your QA pass could not see, late, and the conversation becomes about whether they are real. A finding with a screenshot and a selector is not an opinion.
A handover with no measurement in it
Arabic quality is warranted in a sentence and audited in a meeting. Anything that cannot be re-run cannot be checked later, which means it cannot be defended later either.
The same defect shipped to three clients
A physical margin in a shared component library is one mistake that arrives in every project built on it. Scanning each project finds it three times; finding it once is cheaper.
A second pass that cannot prove anything changed
Re-running a manual QA pass produces a second opinion, not a diff. Without a stable identity per finding, fixed and never-detected look identical.
The product
What it does about that, today
Automated scan per project, with evidence per finding
Each project is its own target with its own history, so a client's site is scored against itself rather than against a benchmark nobody agreed to.
A before and after on the same page set
Findings carry a stable signature, so a re-scan says what was fixed, what is new and what did not move. That is the artifact a handover needs.
A report link per project, with the scope on it
Expiring, not indexed, and it says how many pages the score covers. A client reading a score with no scope has no way to tell a five page crawl from a fifty page one.
It checks the result, not your process
Every finding is a statement about a rendered page. It cannot tell you your component library is wrong, only that three of your projects show the same defect, and it will not review a design before it is built. A scanner that guessed at intent would be a scanner that argued with you.
Or run a free scan on a live client project first. It is one page and needs no account.
Deciding between approaches first? Compare the four.
Backed by the engine
The checks that matter most here
Each has its own page: when it fires, what it ignores and how to fix it. Browse every check.
- Document direction missing, contradicted, or declared only in CSSWhether
<html>says right-to-left and the page actually renders that way: a missing or overriddendirflips the whole layout for an Arabic reader. - Forced-LTR container, or a bidi override, over Arabic contentUnder a
dir="ltr"ordirection: ltrbox, mostly Arabic text starts at the wrong edge with punctuation out of order, and abidi-overridecan mirror its letters or reverse embedded numbers. - Direction-sensitive physical properties without an RTL overrideWhere the stylesheet shows signs of being written left-to-right first,
margin-left,padding-rightorleftleave Arabic spacing and offsets on the wrong side; otherwise it is reported as a lower-confidence risk. - Letter-spacing applied to Arabic text (breaks the connected script)Arabic letters join along a baseline, so positive tracking breaks the joins and negative tracking overlaps the letterforms, typically from a Latin type scale never scoped away from Arabic.
- Visible Latin-script body text above thresholds on an Arabic pageLatin-script passages left on an Arabic page, a single sentence or a large share of the whole page, tell the reader the translation stopped partway.
- Document-level horizontal overflowWhen one element is wider than the viewport the whole page scrolls sideways, and on a phone that leaves an Arabic reader panning to reach content cut off at the edge.
- Unisolated bidi hazards: phones, emails, Latin tokens inside Arabic textIn right-to-left text a phone number like
+966 55 123 4567displays as4567 123 55 966+unless it is isolated in<bdi>, and figures with brackets or signs can flip the same way. - Tel/email/url inputs rendered RTL (these must stay LTR)Phone, email and URL fields left right-to-left on an Arabic page: their values are left-to-right strings, so digit groups and punctuation can display out of order as users type.
FAQ
Questions buyers ask
When a scan is not enough
People behind the engine
A person reviewing, fixing or watching your Arabic, each engagement scoped from a scan.
- We look
Arabic Readiness Certification
A pre-launch audit by people who read Arabic, ending in a certificate.See the engagement - We fix
RTL conversion
We take the product from its measured score to a clean one, and the scan is the receipt.See the engagement - We look
Arabic Typography & Font Audit
The layer that decides whether Arabic looks native or merely present.See the engagement - We watch
Localization QA Retainer
For teams shipping continuously without an Arabic speaker on staff.See the engagement - We rebuild
Ritla UI rollout
We replace the components that keep breaking in Arabic with Ritla components, so the fixes stay fixed.See the engagement - We design
Custom theme
Your brand as a Ritla theme: a Figma file and code on the same tokens, Arabic-first.See the engagement - You deliver
Agency partners
Resell certification and conversion under your own brand.See the engagement
See what your Arabic pages look like to the engine
One page, about a minute, no account. The result says what it measured and what it could not.
Run a free scanCompare approaches