Current:
An intranet site that transforms gracefully.
A large company was concerned about the ability to address individuals at many diverse office locations that have different technology bases. To address the problem, they created two versions of their content and documented the requirements for each, making it easy for individual locations to determine which version would work best for their technologies.
Proposed:
An intranet site with multiple versions.
A large company was concerned about the use of emerging Web techologies on tan intranet site and their ability to address the needs of individuals at many diverse office locations that have different technology bases and who use a wide variety of user agents and assistive technologies. To address the concerns, they created two versions of their content and documented the requirements for each, making it easy for individual locations to determine which version would work best for their technologies.
Close with comment: While the suggestion that the reviewer makes for this example is a more ideal solution, this success criterion is specifically about content that does not meet all of the level 1 criterion and the need to create alternate versions. The example has been revised to align with the current SC text.
Close with comment: The text "even if" is necessary in this success criterion because SC 4.2.1 makes it possible to make general claims (ex. http://example.com meets WCAG 2.0) provided that an accessible version of content that does meet all WCAG requirements is available from the same URI.
Close with comment: The working group does not want to discourage or restrict the use of emerging technologies and recognizes that some technologies and content can be utilized to address the specific needs of one disability group while decreasing the accessibility of the content for another. This success ensures that an accessible version of all content is available without prohibiting the use of any current or future technologies.
Close with comment: 4.2.3 is about content outside of baseline. By definition, that content must already have an accessible alternative if it does not meet WCAG to the level of conformance being claimed. To claim level three, the accesible version would have to have at least met level 2. Since we don't require that all level 3 be met, it is valid to claim that all content conforms to level 2 and all content conforms to half of level 3 – with the alternative (non-baseline content) meeting as many level 1 and 2 criterion as possible to meet 4.2.3.
Close with comment: This has been addressed by the addition of situations to How to Meet 4.2.1.
Current: 4.2.1 If one version of the content does not meet all Level 1 success criteria, then an alternate version is available from the same URI that does meet all Level 1 success criteria.
Proposed: At least one version of the content meets all level 1 success criteria, but alternate version(s) that do not meet all level 1 success criteria may be available from the same URI.
Proposed: Good idea. We've added "version" to the front of 4.2.1 since this issue was raised, so have incorporated that edit into this proposal for consideration by the group. If accepted, close with, "4.2.1 has been revised to read, ..."