Trusted Tester 1B: Equivalent Alternative describes content identified in an accessible alternate version as:

• A. For content identified in an ACCESSIBLE ALTERNATE VERSION, the content provides fewer features than the non-conforming version.
• B. For content identified in an ACCESSIBLE ALTERNATE VERSION, the content must be identical in layout to the non-conforming version.
• C. For content identified in an ACCESSIBLE ALTERNATE VERSION, the content must be accessible without testing.
• D. For content identified in an ACCESSIBLE ALTERNATE VERSION, the content provides equivalent information and functionality as the non-conforming version(s).

Answer: (D)

The main concept is that an accessible alternate version must provide equivalent information and functionality to the non-conforming version. This means users who rely on accessible formats should get the same content and be able to perform the same tasks, even if the presentation changes to accommodate accessibility needs.

This is why the correct description says the accessible alternate version delivers equivalent information and functionality as the non-conforming version. It emphasizes parity in what users can access and do, not necessarily how the content looks.

Why the other ideas don’t fit: offering fewer features would reduce what users can do, which isn’t acceptable for an accessible equivalent; requiring the layout to be identical ignores the reality that accessible formats often reorganize or simplify presentation while preserving content and interactions; and assuming accessibility without testing isn’t reliable—testing is part of ensuring that the equivalent information and functionality are truly available.