Search results

Everyone will have access to the. material, and be able to find, understand and use the standard. All ASC materials should be in plain language.

remove a barrier to understanding

Remove a glaring barrier to access and understanding.

So everyone has. access to egress instructions.

The scope section is written as a built environment standard - only applying to new builds, renos, or new occupancy. However parts of the standard, such as section 11, are applicable to all occupied buildings regardless of the timing of the last changes.

Evacuation is also applicable in outdoor spaces, especially given the breadth of the types of evacuations that the standard refers to. Eg national parks and forest fires.

What is section 10? It’s numbered as though it’s a substantive section but it has no requirements. It’s written like definitions, but isn’t in the definition section.

When the public visits somewhere, they will rarely have a PEEP. This suggests it will always exist.

In public buildings, visitors with disabilities rarely have a peep or an assigned buddy. This would typically only be in place where people are regularly visiting somewhere (their workplace)

In large buildings, a fire warden may have responsibility for an area smaller than the whole floor.

This section assumes a person with a disability regularly comes to The building. Visitors will not have a PEEP, for example, and should not be required to develop one.

There’s a lot of mention of peeps elsewhere and it would be useful to reference where to find more info

The visitor peep section seems to assume a visitor to an office building. This is both an extreme expectation of someone with a disability every time they visit any space and unrealistic. Someone goes to apply for a passport, visits a federal museum, goes to the bank, or goes to the CN tower. This is simply not possible.

Not all buildings will have a checkin or security desk that visitors will be checking in at.

Signs are often not accessible and therefore are not a great means of identifying visitors that may need a PEE.

Again - given the numbers of visitors and sizes of some buildings, visitors are not going to have a buddy with them who can be responsible for this. I'm imagining large museums, or airports, etc. What is the alternative? As written, it says that everyone who needs assistance SHALL have a buddy.

Clarify who is responsible for completing various activities. make it a shall instead of "is responsible for"

Clarify who owns the requirement and convert additional information into a note.

Clarify the responsibility - the drill isn't responsible for anything.

As written, this is just informative. There is no requirement here.

The first sentence in this section is a note, not a requirement. The subsequent items are aimed at people assisting and buddies. Are they the audience of the standard? I would think this needs to be written that building managers shall ensure... Or occupants shall ensure...

The section now has shall requirements for PWD and their buddies. But again, are they the audience that is implementing the stndard? OR should it be that building managers or occupants shall...

Clarify who is responsible for this. The drills and emergencies cannot document themselves.

It is not clear who is responsible for ensuring that the discussion includes these things. The discussion can't do it itself.

Clarify responsibility

Clarify responsibility

If the communication system is too low, its also inaccessible.

Should this be a note? It doesn't have any normative requirement

The name of this Annex isn't clear - isn't the whole standard about this? And "issues" seems to put the responsibility on the person with a disability.

Its not just for PWD. So remove.

To clarify the responsibility.

Too long.

Because otherwise the draft reads like its just for internal employees in the building.