• Skip to main content
  • Skip to "About government"

Language switcher

  • Françaisfr
Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search Accessbility Standards Canada


Use the Left and Right arrow keys to navigate between the top level menu items. Press the ENTER key or double tap the SPACEBAR to select a menu item. To navigate through a sub menu, Press the SPACEBAR or the Down arrow key. Use the Up and Down arrow keys to navigate through submenu items. Press the Enter or SPACEBAR to select a submenu item. Press the ESCAPE key to close the submenu and return to the top level.

Main navigation

  • Home
    • About us
    • Accessibility Plan
    • Get involved
    • Reports and publications
    • Transparency
    • Consultations
    • Organizational structure
  • Accessibility standards
    • Standards and technical guides database
    • Standards under public review
    • Technical committees
    • Work program
  • Funding research
    • Funded research project database
  • Centre of Expertise
  • Contact us
  • Login

Mobile Menu

  • Home
    • About us
    • Accessibility Plan
    • Get involved
    • Reports and publications
    • Transparency
    • Consultations
    • Organizational structure
  • Accessibility standards
    • Standards and technical guides database
    • Standards under public review
    • Technical committees
    • Work program
  • Funding research
    • Funded research project database
  • Centre of Expertise
  • Contact us
  • Login

You are here

  1. Canada.ca
  2. Accessibility Standards Canada
  3. Search results

Search results


Displaying 551 - 560 of 729

Individual 64586's submission

CAN-ASC-2.2 – Emergency Egress (Exit)
Feedback items
Item id
1769046517634_137
Heading id
s12.1.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
12.1.4 Doors serving an area of refuge A door serving an immediate area of refuge shall: a) be leakage-rated complying with NFPA 105; b) have a clear width complying with CSA/ASC B651; c) be equipped with a power door operator capable of being activated in the event of a loss of power via emergency power or alternative power source; and d) be located clear of any adjacent door swing and away from pedestrian exit routes.
What should we change it to?
12.1.4 Doors serving an area of refuge A door serving an immediate area of refuge shall: a) be leakage-rated complying with NFPA 105; b) have a clear width complying with CSA/ASC B651; c) be equipped with a power door operator in compliance with either ANSI/BHMA A156.10 (Power Operated Pedestrian Doors) or ANSI/BHMA A156.19 (Power Assist and Low Energy Power Operated Swinging Doors), capable of being activated in the event of a loss of power via emergency power or alternative power source; and d) be located clear of any adjacent door swing and away from pedestrian exit routes.
Why should we change it?
These two consensus BHMA standards are well established and recognized as appropriate requirements for power operated doors. Utilizing these standards will provide specifiers and users with consistency in application and enforcement.
Heading text
12.1.4 Doors serving an area of refuge
Heading number portion
12.1.4
Item id
1769046570263_528
Heading id
s12.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
12.2 Exit doors All doors along the egress route shall comply with CSA/ASC B651 and the NFC. They shall be equipped with power operators
What should we change it to?
All doors along the egress route shall comply with CSA/ASC B651 and the NFC. They shall be equipped with power operators in compliance with either ANSI/BHMA A156.10 (Power Operated Pedestrian Doors) or ANSI/BHMA A156.19 (Power Assist and Low Energy Power Operated Swinging Doors).
Why should we change it?
These two consensus BHMA standards are well established and recognized as appropriate requirements for power operated doors. Utilizing these standards will provide specifiers and users with consistency in application and enforcement.
Heading text
12.2 Exit doors
Heading number portion
12.2
Item id
1769046630437_261
Heading id
s16.5.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
An accessible exit door discharging to the exterior of a building or another building shall: a) have a sign with raised characters and braille; b) if discharging directly to the exterior, lead to an accessible exterior path of travel and the exterior muster point; and c) if discharging to another building, lead to a path of travel that complies with this Standard.
What should we change it to?
An accessible exit door discharging to the exterior of a building or another building shall have a sign with raised characters and braille.
Why should we change it?
Items b) and c) are already addressed in Section 12.2. Also, these two items are unrelated to signage, so they do not fit in Section 16.5.2. Therefore, these two items should be stricken from Section 16.5.2. BHMA believes this change is editorial.
Heading text
16.5.2 Exit door signage
Heading number portion
16.5.2
Submission ID
64586
Submitted by
VWilliams
Submitted on
Wed, 01/21/2026 - 20:50
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64587's submission

CAN-ASC-2.2 – Emergency Egress (Exit)
Feedback items
Item id
1769047019935_204
Heading id
s13.2.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Section 13.2.1 speaks to the effectiveness of visible signal devices (and other devices) for waking sleeping people
What should we change it to?
However, the challenge is that the fire alarm systems that this standard includes, unlike smoke alarms, are not located in sleeping units. Fire alarm systems are generally in apartment buildings (rental and condo) and are generally required in corridors, common areas, and other non-sleeping units. As an additional element in Ontario, for example, in the residential suites within these large buildings are generally smoke alarms that are specific to that suite and not connected to the building fire alarm system. This is one reason why Ontario’s smoke alarm requirement implemented in its 2015 provincial Building Code in section 3.2.4.22 included the requirement for residential standalone smoke alarms in each sleeping room (sub-section 3.a). Since subsection 13 also required visual signaling component, this is where the value in waking sleeping people occurs and why Ontario made the decision to include a comprehensive fire alarms systems and smoke alarm requirement so that safety and accessibility was increased for all residents of these new buildings
Why should we change it?
NA
Heading text
13.2.1 Alerting or signaling devices
Heading number portion
13.2.1
Item id
1769047150928_449
Heading id
s13.1.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Section 13.1.4 speaks to cases “where a fire alarm system is not provided, the visible SIGNAL system shall consist of strobe lights conforming to CAN/ULC-S526.
What should we change it to?
SIGNAL system shall consist of strobe lights conforming to CAN/ULC-S526.” o We believe that this is an opportunity to include a requirement for smoke alarms with visible signal devices as a cost-effective method of including the accessibility technology in a manner that includes the additional benefit of an audible device
Why should we change it?
NA
Heading text
13.1.4 Where a fire alarm system is not provided
Heading number portion
13.1.4
Item id
1769047228391_838
Heading id
s7.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Section 7.1(a) notes that the standard shall apply to “all new buildings.”
What should we change it to?
In this case, there is a gap in application on single-family homes, which do not require fire alarm systems, but rather smoke alarms. The benefits of visible signal technology are clear: • Enhanced visibility: Strobe lights are highly visible due to their intense and rapid flashing. They can cut through visual clutter, effectively capturing attention and conveying urgent messages. In emergency situations or high-noise environments, strobe lights provide a visual cue to help ensure people are alert and respond appropriately. They are also synchronized at 1hz for safety and accessibility and to address concerns that were discussed around epilepsy when Ontario put its provincial requirement in place ten years ago. o Added visibility: Kidde has also received reports from firefighters in British Columbia that visible signals have increased their response times in large apartment buildings or condo, where flashing lights from individual units seen from the street has enabled them to locate the fire earlier, and respond faster. • Accessibility and inclusivity: Strobe lights benefit individuals with hearing impairments. By providing a visual component to alarm systems, strobe lights ensure that those who may not hear or have difficulty hearing audible alarms can still receive crucial alerts. This enhances accessibility and promotes the safety of individuals with hearing disabilities. As Proposed Change 2252 states, “Statistics Canada reports in 2021 that “overall, 60% of Canadians aged 19 to 79 have a hearing health problem,” and 38% have hearing loss. The percentage of the population reported to have hearing loss was reported to be 10% in 2001.” The problem has clearly been growing. o Added inclusivity: Beyond the growing segment of the population with hearing disabilities, visible signals also have an added benefit of waking sleeping children, who have a tendency of deep sleep that can tune out sounds such as smoke alarm tones.1 • Increased effectiveness in noisy environments: Traditional audible alarms may be difficult to hear in loud or noisy environments, such as construction sites or industrial settings. Strobe lights overcome this limitation by providing a visual signal that can be easily noticed amidst high noise levels. They can help ensure that important alerts are not missed due to ambient noise.
Why should we change it?
NA
Heading text
7.1 Inclusions
Heading number portion
7.1
Submission ID
64587
Submitted by
VWilliams
Submitted on
Wed, 01/21/2026 - 21:02
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64588's submission

CAN-ASC-2.2 – Emergency Egress (Exit)
Feedback items
Item id
1769047603618_316
Heading id
s12.1.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The chosen solution.
What should we change it to?
Adapt the solution to the new standards.
Why should we change it?
Sprinklers are no longer a solution to increasing fire-safety in areas where fire compartments are required will have an effect of more sq.ft. dedicated to egress and safety than previously considered.If this norms impacts existing infrastructure, this could be very hard to implement.
Heading text
12.1.1 Application
Heading number portion
12.1.1
Item id
1769047665083_657
Heading id
s12.1.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
More flexibility and adaptation on the requirements for refuge areas.
What should we change it to?
na
Why should we change it?
Mandatory areas of refuge on each floor is more restrictive and should be evaluated in parallel with accessibility extraction plans. I recommend that this be reviewed with Fire Safety teams – consider high traffic areas versus transient uses (like parking structures)
Heading text
12.1.1 Application
Heading number portion
12.1.1
Item id
1769047709779_18
Heading id
s12.1.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Taking into account the costs of such changes
What should we change it to?
na
Why should we change it?
Electric door operators are required for all doors in path of egress and remote operated connections to a central. This will add significant costs to projects, but makes perfect sense.
Heading text
12.1.4 Doors serving an area of refuge
Heading number portion
12.1.4
Item id
1769047794885_871
Heading id
s12.2.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Taking into account the costs of such changes.
What should we change it to?
na
Why should we change it?
Electric door operators are required for all doors in path of egress and remote operated connections to a central. This will add significant costs to projects, but makes perfect sense.
Heading text
12.2.1 Power door operators on horizontal exit doors
Heading number portion
12.2.1
Item id
1769047982714_914
Heading id
s12.1.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The details on the turning radius
What should we change it to?
Adding more guidance on how the turning radius can be taken into account and what room to maneuvre is available for companies in that regard.
Why should we change it?
Larger turning radius are consistent with CSAB651v23 at 2.1m (also ADM cadre regl. Requirement for new buildings) …again if this is imposed on existing infrastructures, this will be challenging.
Heading text
12.1.5 Interior of areas of refuge
Heading number portion
12.1.5
Item id
1769048049635_82
Heading id
s12.1.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Lighting requirements.
What should we change it to?
More synchronisation with the building code.
Why should we change it?
Lighting level requirements of 200lux is higher than buidling code min. but consistent with requirements for accessibility
Heading text
12.1.5 Interior of areas of refuge
Heading number portion
12.1.5
Item id
1769048137612_600
Heading id
s12.1.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Taking into account the demands of the requirements for emergency communications and paging systems.
What should we change it to?
na
Why should we change it?
Requirements for emergency communication and paging system are intense and will result in added costs to projects.
Heading text
12.1.7 Areas of refuge communication
Heading number portion
12.1.7
Item id
1769048204154_31
Heading id
s12.3.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Maximum distance of travel.
What should we change it to?
More synchronisation with the NBC.
Why should we change it?
Max. distance of 45-60m of travel is more restrictive than NBC (60m)
Heading text
12.3.2 Exterior egress path of travel
Heading number portion
12.3.2
Item id
1769048241723_225
Heading id
s12.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
No use in repeting requirements already in place in CSAB651v23
What should we change it to?
na
Why should we change it?
Ramps that are part of egress paths are limited to a slope of 1:15 and include safety features for low-vision - no-vision and neurodiverse users such as notched handrails and safety tactile indicators. A lot of this is already included or recommended in CSAB651v23
Heading text
12.7 Ramps
Heading number portion
12.7
Item id
1769048288731_563
Heading id
s0
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Préciser l'entrée en vigueur des requis des aires de refuges et la communications bi-directionnelle
What should we change it to?
na
Why should we change it?
Il est important de savoir lorsque / si la norme devient une obligation réglementaire à quels projets en cours elle s'appliquera. En effet, un projet lancé et réalisé à moins de 30%, par exemple au stade de PFT (Plan fonctionnel technique) ne pourra que très difficilement et en modifiant tout le travail déjà effectué, intégrer les nouveaux requis.
Heading text
1. Accessibility Standards Canada: About us
Heading number portion
1.
Submission ID
64588
Submitted by
VWilliams
Submitted on
Wed, 01/21/2026 - 21:19
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64666's submission

CAN-ASC-2.4 – Wayfinding and Signage
Feedback items
Item id
1769803493443_547
Heading id
s10.1.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
This is wonderful and essential news that you are recommending colour temperature around 3000 K, especially for those of us who suffer from a permanent concussion disability, which causes migraines when in any environment above 3000 K). In other words, I get a migraine in every public setting where 4000 K or 5000 K was/is typical. So, I need dark overglasses everywhere. At home, 2700 K (even better) and 3000 K kitchen do not in themselves cause migraines.
What should we change it to?
You could add the term “photosensitivity,” which the Government of Canada uses re light sensitivity disability (e.g. archived Web 2.0 disabilities description)(never use “phobia.”)We are not afraid of lights. FYI, the Government of Canada lists light sensitivity on its website regarding concussions.
Why should we change it?
This is an essential new recommendation re 3000 K to alleviate daily suffering! Please make sure that you announce this ASAP and broadly when finalized.
Heading text
10.1.2 General lighting design
Heading number portion
10.1.2
Item id
1769804110884_274
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Add instruction: Do not continue same carpeting/floor tiling up the wall as a baseboard regarding vertigo. Baseboards should be a contrasting colour from the floor.
What should we change it to?
Please add above comment to the effect indicated.
Why should we change it?
Important safety issue (re vertigo, vestibular balance/ocular issues).
Heading text
11.3 Walking surfaces of interior and exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1769804523207_770
Heading id
s12.2.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Paper maps are essential to those of us with some disabilities who do not use smartphones.
What should we change it to?
Add a comment about the necessity to maintain paper maps.
Why should we change it?
Not accessible for people with computer disabilities (no smartphone).;
Heading text
12.2.1 Orientation Signs
Heading number portion
12.2.1
Item id
1769805136678_791
Heading id
s12.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Never grey font (trendy now). Not enough contrast. FYI, Sign image show contrast in black/white photocopy to measure sufficient contrast.
What should we change it to?
Not sure, but black/white photocopy test is good to confirm “70% contrast” recommended.
Why should we change it?
Best practices to minimize eye strain and increase comprehension.
Heading text
12.5 Colour contrast
Heading number portion
12.5
Submission ID
64666
Submitted by
barbarahennessy48@gmail.com
Submitted on
Fri, 01/30/2026 - 15:36
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64669's submission

CAN-ASC-2.4 – Wayfinding and Signage
Feedback items
Item id
1769808429514_604
Heading id
s3.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
consistent casing of "Accessibility Standards Canada", which sometimes appears as "accessibility standards Canada"
What should we change it to?
change all instances of "accessibility standards Canada" to "Accessibility Standards Canada"
Why should we change it?
casing of ASC should be consistent and correct in its documents. **the same casing issue was also in the ASC 2.2. draft standard. Consider fixing the template with this text. :)
Heading text
3.3 Disclaimer and exclusion of liability
Heading number portion
3.3
Item id
1769810459674_590
Heading id
s6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
consider adding content to explain the structure of the standard, including what constitutes a clause. Consider also using different language to distinguish clause, sub-clause, sentence, etc.
What should we change it to?
consider adding content to explain the structure of the standard, including what constitutes a clause. Consider also using different language to distinguish clause, sub-clause, sentence, section, etc.
Why should we change it?
The standard relies on clauses but never defines what a clause is. Also, because everything seems to be a clause, aspects like application statements become confusing because it's not clear what specific clause is being referenced. For example, the line in Clause 10.1.1. says "This clause shall apply to the lighting of all wayfinding elements" - it's not clear if the application is for all of clause 10.1, 10.1.1, or something different.
Heading text
7. Scope
Heading number portion
7.
Item id
1769811691887_564
Heading id
s7.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
consider sorting the list in a more intuitive way (e.g., order in which topics appear in the standard)
What should we change it to?
consider sorting the list in a more intuitive way (e.g., order in which topics appear in the standard, or alphabetically)
Why should we change it?
in the absence of alphabetical sorting or sorting based on order of appearance, the list gives the impression of hierarchy among topics. This may be the case (and if so, say so), but if not, then sorting in another way will limit the impression of hierarchy if this isn't intended.
Heading text
7.2 Inclusions
Heading number portion
7.2
Item id
1769811928493_689
Heading id
s9.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
use of SI acronym in Lux definition
What should we change it to?
include the full "systeme internationale" in addition to the SI acronym
Why should we change it?
SI isn't defined until clause 9.2 - after the acronym appears in the standard.
Heading text
9.1 Definitions
Heading number portion
9.1
Item id
1769812337957_650
Heading id
s9.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Organization of frontal, lateral and functional reach
What should we change it to?
consider listing "Reaches" on this list, and then list the frontal, lateral and functional reach underneath
Why should we change it?
the definitions are easier to understand when they are positioned together (maybe with a picture). Also, the functional reach definition depends on the lateral reach definition, which doesn't appear until later in the list.
Heading text
9.1 Definitions
Heading number portion
9.1
Item id
1769812842944_719
Heading id
s9.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
language on "fixed base of support" under the "functional reach" definition
What should we change it to?
modify to "without losing their balance".
Why should we change it?
The "losing balance" language is consistent with frontal and lateral reach definitions within the standard. It's also more appropriate for real-world situations than "maintaining a fixed base of support" because people can and do grab environmental features, step, and modify their stance without losing balance - deliberately walking toward a sign, widening one's stance, or grabbing a handrail to extend one's reach isn't a functional problem unless the person loses their balance. Also, "keeping a fixed base of support" is probably more jargon-y than appropriate for the general audience who would be reading this standard.
Heading text
9.1 Definitions
Heading number portion
9.1
Item id
1769812975107_815
Heading id
s9.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
definition of pictogram
What should we change it to?
consider removing the word "efficient"
Why should we change it?
Some pictograms don't effectively convey the intended message, and thus aren't efficient.
Heading text
9.1 Definitions
Heading number portion
9.1
Item id
1769813037294_283
Heading id
s9.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Weber contrast
What should we change it to?
include the equation instead of the note
Why should we change it?
equations are more clear to read and understand as intended
Heading text
9.1 Definitions
Heading number portion
9.1
Item id
1769817710242_590
Heading id
heading-68
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
note 1
What should we change it to?
consider removing it
Why should we change it?
the requirement in the body of the standard already prescribes a minimum height of 4 mm. There is no need to duplicate the information.
Heading text
11.4.3.3.2 Height of bars
Heading number portion
11.4.3.3.2
Item id
1769818438569_590
Heading id
s11.4.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
consider eliminating most of this section and just refer to CSA/ASC B651-23 clause 4.4.5, except where ASC 2.4. proposes something different or otherwise adds value
What should we change it to?
consider eliminating most of this section and just refer to CSA/ASC B651-23 clause 4.4.5, except where ASC 2.4. proposes something different or otherwise adds value
Why should we change it?
Other parts of this draft standard refer to CSA/ASC B651, so it's a bit confusing to not see any references to that standard in the section that is arguably written to match CSA in many respects. There are subtle differences between the ASC 2.4 and CSA/ASC B651 content, but it's hard to tell what they are based on the current presentation of this draft. It would be much easier for a reader to apply if ASC 2.4 just said "comply with CSA/ASC B651-23 clause 4.4.5., with the following additions and exceptions". Even if the committee disagrees with this approach, it will still be useful to publish a short primer on how this standard is different from CSA/ASC B651-23 - much easier for designers to meet the accessibility goals of both standards.
Heading text
11.4.2 Attention indicator surfaces
Heading number portion
11.4.2
Item id
1774112282582_620
Heading id
heading-29
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
clauses (a) and (b)
What should we change it to?
don't change, but coordinate with ASC 2.2 (standard on emergency egress)
Why should we change it?
ASC 2.2. (at least the draft) prescribes 200 lx for minimum lighting requirements). To be clear, I don't think that 100 lx requirement in this standard should change, but I think it would be useful to address the mismatch somewhere to avoid confusion (e.g., if a space isn't designed as an exit route, 100 lx is ok for basic wayfinding).
Heading text
10.1.2.1 Basic lighting considerations
Heading number portion
10.1.2.1
Item id
1774112649698_969
Heading id
s11.2.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
clauses a and b
What should we change it to?
consider specifying the relevant CSA/ASC B651-23 clauses
Why should we change it?
CSA/ASC B651-23 is a long standard, and several portions aren't relevant to obstacles on paths of travel. It will be easier for designers to understand and comply with the intent of the committee if specific clauses are referenced.
Heading text
11.2.1 Obstacles on paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.1
Item id
1774112920830_829
Heading id
s11.2.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
the explanatory note
What should we change it to?
consider explicitly addressing benches and seating, which are important for people with mobility disabilities, hidden or otherwise
Why should we change it?
benches are really important accessibility features for people who cannot walk long distances (or honestly for people in general). It would be problematic for the take-home from this standard is "don't install benches". I think explicitly noting benches in the note will help reinforce that there are some types of obstacles that serve an important role and that need to be considered in the larger accessibility discussion.
Heading text
11.2.1 Obstacles on paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.1
Item id
1774113365268_587
Heading id
s10.1.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
minimum lighting levels
What should we change it to?
coordinate with ASC 2.2
Why should we change it?
ASC 2.2 uses different numbers (200 lx). It would be useful and help avoid confusion if guidance to a designer were provided on how to navigate those differences, considering aspects like building use. This will be especially important if both standards become mandatory for federally-regulated occupancies.
Heading text
10.1.5 Exterior lighting
Heading number portion
10.1.5
Item id
1774114625181_213
Heading id
heading-29
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
note 1
What should we change it to?
consider being a bit more specific on the intent - something like "if lighting is installed in the handrail, the function of the handrail for balance and fall prevention should still be obvious" (not the best wording, but the essential point is that people still need to see the handrail and understand its purpose and utility as a handrail)
Why should we change it?
The current wording implies that it's ok for handrails to be invisible if they don't have embedded lighting. Presumably handrails should be visible whether lighting is installed in them or not. :) I suspect the larger goal is to make sure people know that the handrail has a dual role in lighting and keeping people upright, but the current wording doesn't indicate that.
Heading text
10.1.2.1 Basic lighting considerations
Heading number portion
10.1.2.1
Item id
1774115024268_546
Heading id
heading-29
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
minimum lighting levels
What should we change it to?
consider adding a pointer to CSA/ASC B651-23 and NBC 2025, which both prescribe higher illumination levels in certain contexts.
Why should we change it?
This is one of the few areas where ASC has less stringent requirements than the NBC, so I think it would be useful to flag this distinction to a reader. I don't think you necessarily need to change your number; just make a note that NBC is stricter in this area. The relevant lines are in NBC Article 3.2.7.1. (as an FYI, NBC addresses accessibility outside of Section 3.8., which is likely why the committee missed it). In particular, service rooms, laundry areas and illumination at the level of controls that provide visual information needs to be >= 200 lx.
Heading text
10.1.2.1 Basic lighting considerations
Heading number portion
10.1.2.1
Item id
1774115792860_103
Heading id
s11.2.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
clause a
What should we change it to?
state the specific CSA/ASC B651 clauses that are intended to apply (I assume 8.3.9.(b)), along with any necessary qualifiers for the intended application to ASC 2.4
Why should we change it?
if compliance with CSA/ASC B651 bollard placement is important to the committee, then the standard needs to make it as easy as possible for a reader to comply with the standard by directing the reader to the intended line. Being specific about the intended line is important because CSA B651 has different guidance on visual contrast (CSA B651 8.3.9.(a)) than ASC 2.4. 11.2.2.b, so ASC 2.4. should clarify what - exactly - they want the reader to do. Also, CSA/ASC B651 clause 8.3.9. applies to bollards adjacent to a pedestrian route, whereas ASC 2.4. specifies all bollards in paths of travel, so ASC 2.4. should be precise about which aspects of CSA it wants a reader to reference vs ignore.
Heading text
11.2.2 Bollards in paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.2
Item id
1774118064408_230
Heading id
s12.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
clause b
What should we change it to?
strike the language on "without feeling lost"
Why should we change it?
the designer has no control over how people feel - it's pretty common to feel lost when unfamiliar with an environment even when the directional signage is adequate. I appreciate the intent. The key information for a reader is "lead people to their destination and back, even if they are unfamiliar..." - this is better emphasized when one removes the "without feeling lost" piece.
Heading text
12.1 General
Heading number portion
12.1
Item id
1774118263971_534
Heading id
s12.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
consider consolidating all of the types of signage in this section into a table
What should we change it to?
consider consolidating all of the types of signage in this section into a table
Why should we change it?
each of the subclauses are purely informative, so it's a bit discombulating to see them given individual clauses like a requirement. The information will be easier to process, compare and contrast in a summary table - both the types of signs, as well as the sub-categories (e.g., prohibition or mandatory under regulatory) AND the examples of each type of sign.
Heading text
12.2 Types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2
Item id
1774118928221_927
Heading id
s12.2.9
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
clause c and d
What should we change it to?
either remove them or add a major qualifier to indicate their sensitivity to the weather and maintenance - like "under dry conditions, the trail is firm. Conditions may change under rain and snow".
Why should we change it?
for outdoor unpaved trails, the firmness is completely dependent on the weather. It would be problematic for a sign to relay inaccurate information because it rained or snowed or a tree fell and park maintenance personnel haven't had a chance to clear it yet. I think this insight is useful, but needs a bit more work to align with real-world factors that are unpredictable (e.g., rain and snow + implications for trail firmness).
Heading text
12.2.9 Signs for outdoor spaces
Heading number portion
12.2.9
Item id
1774119125624_495
Heading id
s12.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
clause b
What should we change it to?
consider an exception for common acronyms and abbreviations (e.g., St. for street)
Why should we change it?
When information needs to be read and processed quickly (e.g., street signs), it is more challenging for a reader when the length of the sign becomes needlessly long. Consistent use of common abbreviations is helpful in this situation, like abbreviations for street names.
Heading text
12.3 Quality of information
Heading number portion
12.3
Item id
1774119252901_285
Heading id
s12.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
consider addressing numbers and how they are depicted
What should we change it to?
consider including a requirement that numbers be written with their relevant Arabic numeral (if the sign is in a language that uses Arabic numerals), instead of writing out the full word (e.g., 1 instead of One)
Why should we change it?
numerals are faster and easier to read, and take up less space on the sign :) Also helpful for people who may not be able to read the language the sign is in.
Heading text
12.3 Quality of information
Heading number portion
12.3
Item id
1774119777515_32
Heading id
s12.6.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
note 2
What should we change it to?
consider specifying how the floor number should be displayed on handrails (did you mean for this to address tactile numbering on the underside of the handrail?)
Why should we change it?
the current wording suggests that floor numbers just need to be painted on the handrail in addition to each level. I'm not sure the same type of visual information needs to be duplicated in both places. The handrail would make sense for tactile information that supplements the visual information provided by the floor number display.
Heading text
12.6.3 Stairs
Heading number portion
12.6.3
Item id
1774120412152_404
Heading id
s12.11.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
consider restructuring to better distinguish background information from provisions for a designer to follow
What should we change it to?
consider restructuring to better distinguish background information from provisions for a designer to follow - distinguish the last sentence in some way from the preceding stuff
Why should we change it?
a reader who is skimming or tired or ... might miss the line with the word "shall". It needs to be easier to distinguish background info from design requirements.
Heading text
12.11.2 Usage
Heading number portion
12.11.2
Item id
1774120655586_931
Heading id
s15.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
move all of the publications to the "publications" section
What should we change it to?
move all of the publications to the "publications" section
Why should we change it?
There are several publications here that better fit in the publications section. Also, several of the publications below are also online resources.
Heading text
15.3 Online Resources
Heading number portion
15.3
Item id
1774120871608_883
Heading id
s15.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
correct the various document references to include full citation information, as well as correct individual author information for several of the resources that have been attributed to institutions rather than individual authors
What should we change it to?
correct the various document references to include full citation information, as well as correct individual author information for several of the resources that have been attributed to institutions rather than individual authors
Why should we change it?
Unless the report was published by the institution, academics typically publish on behalf of themselves rather than the institution. This is important because the views expressed in academic publications are those of the authors, NOT of their employer. The publications reference list should reflect this.
Heading text
15.4 Publications
Heading number portion
15.4
Item id
1774121658528_708
Heading id
s12.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
language on "soft to the touch"
What should we change it to?
consider a more precise word - something like "smooth" maybe?
Why should we change it?
tactile signs are often rigid - which, by definition, means that they aren't soft.
Heading text
12.7 Tactile signs
Heading number portion
12.7
Item id
1774122022377_679
Heading id
s12.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
consider replacing functional reach language with plain language, and note somewhere where functional reach is measured from
What should we change it to?
"Tactile signs are installed close enough to the circulation or pedestrian area so that a person can reach them from the front or side without losing their balance".
Why should we change it?
The current language needs to address where the tactile sign is located with respect to the pedestrian area (or circulation space, or wherever). Strictly speaking a sign at the other end of a corridor (indicating what room is at the other end of the corridor) would fail the "functional reach" requirement for someone who hasn't mobilized to that other end, despite being appropriately located.
Heading text
12.7 Tactile signs
Heading number portion
12.7
Item id
1774122213091_71
Heading id
s12.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
consider adding an image to show how all the elements fit together
What should we change it to?
consider adding an image to show how all the elements fit together
Why should we change it?
There are a lot of requirements here, and an image would really help a designer see how they all fit together. This will be especially helpful for clause 12.7.1(b), with helping someone understand what is meant by "be approachable within 100 mm" and what direction is intended.
Heading text
12.7 Tactile signs
Heading number portion
12.7
Item id
1774122505565_104
Heading id
s12.7.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
consolidate clauses b and d
What should we change it to?
consolidate clauses b and d - perhaps by removing the "wall-mounted" restriction on clause d
Why should we change it?
presumably if the clear area in clause d is provided, then a person using a manual and powered wheelchair can get close enough to the sign to reach it, thereby making clause b redundant
Heading text
12.7.3 Tactile signs at eye-level
Heading number portion
12.7.3
Item id
1774122668809_927
Heading id
s12.7.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
consider expanding the application of clause d (and the general goal of tactile signs being reachable) to cover the entire section on tactile signage in Clause 12.7. and not just signs at eye-level
What should we change it to?
consider expanding the application of clause d (and the general goal of tactile signs being reachable) to cover the entire section on tactile signage in Clause 12.7. and not just signs at eye-level
Why should we change it?
Presumably it's important for people who use wheeled mobility devices to be able to reach tactile signs, whether or not they are mounted at eye level. The key information for a designer is contained in clause 12.7.3.(d) - dimensions that allow someone to get close enough to the sign to reach it.
Heading text
12.7.3 Tactile signs at eye-level
Heading number portion
12.7.3
Item id
1774122889587_270
Heading id
s9.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
consider removing the definition of functional reach and the corresponding lateral and frontal reaches, and replace all instances of lateral, frontal and functional reaches in the text with the floor dimensions needed in front of a relevant sign or fixture to achieve the intended goal (in clause 12.7.3.(d))
What should we change it to?
consider removing the definition of functional reach and the corresponding lateral and frontal reaches, and replace all instances of lateral, frontal and functional reaches in the text with the floor dimensions needed in front of a relevant sign or fixture to achieve the intended goal (in clause 12.7.3.(d))
Why should we change it?
The functional / lateral / frontal reach language only appears in this standard in the context of signage. However, there is no guidance provided (outside of Clause 12.7.3.(d)) on how a designer should achieve the functional reach goals - a designer is left to guess at how to design a space for reachable signage. It will be easier for a designer to realize the goals of the standard by providing essential dimensions (e.g., clear space in front of the sign), and maybe use a note to explain why those dimensions are there (e.g., "the purpose of the clear floor space in front of the sign is to allow people to reach the sign from the front or side while seated or standing, and read tactile features without losing their balance"). If the committee disagrees with striking the definitions of functional/lateral/frontal reach altogether and providing a designer with the critical dimensions and design features to achieve the goals, then the suggestions above will help clarify the various dimensions.
Heading text
9.1 Definitions
Heading number portion
9.1
Item id
1774123090697_536
Heading id
s12.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
clause c
What should we change it to?
split this up so that the need for graphical symbols and pictograms are not restricted to signs installed within lateral or frontal reach
Why should we change it?
graphical symbols and pictograms are useful on all signage, not just signage installed within a reachable distance from the pedestrian surface
Heading text
12.1 General
Heading number portion
12.1
Item id
1774123502811_120
Heading id
s12.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
clause c
What should we change it to?
for the elements related to tactile text and braille, use plain language - "when the sign is reachable from the front and side from the pedestrian path" or "when the sign is installed X height above and Y distance from the stance surface"
Why should we change it?
reachable lateral and frontal distances will vary for individuals, which aren't known before the sign is installed. Prescribing dimensions will be a lot more helpful to a designer who is trying to achieve the "functional reach" goal.
Heading text
12.1 General
Heading number portion
12.1
Item id
1774123666056_549
Heading id
s12.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
clause d
What should we change it to?
consider giving more guidance on appropriate lateral and frontal reach distance (e.g., minimum clear floor area in front of the sign, per clause 12.7.3.(d))
Why should we change it?
lateral and frontal reach are unlikely to be known in advance by a designer who has no lived experience with the concept. It will be easier to achieve the intended goal if you prescribe a minimum clear floor area in front of the permanent sign that allows the functional reach goal to be met by adults and children from seated and standing positions.
Heading text
12.8 Braille
Heading number portion
12.8
Item id
1774123842223_688
Heading id
s12.7.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
clause b
What should we change it to?
consider adding a bit more specificity on the intent of "approachable within 100 mm" - e.g., prescribe a clear floor area that needs to be provided within 100 mm of the sign, similar to the wall mounted sign requirements below in Clause 12.7.3.(d)
Why should we change it?
the goal is to allow someone to get within 100 mm of the sign. The relevant dimensions are different based on whether you're approaching from the side or front, and based on the type of mobility device (if any) that you're using. A bit more clarity here on dimensions that allow a designer to achieve the goal will be helpful.
Heading text
12.7.1 Tactile sign design and build elements
Heading number portion
12.7.1
Item id
1774195938002_8
Heading id
s0
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
n/a - big-picture comments
What should we change it to?
n/a - big-picture comments
Why should we change it?
Congratulations to the entire technical committee for bringing this draft standard together. I read it with great interest and have made a few suggestions within to help support implementation, use and clarity. The most major big-picture suggestions that I think will help designers are: 1) Consider creating a guidance document or note to explain how / where this standard differs from CSA/ASC B651-23. Major portions of this standard duplicate the information of CSA/ASC B651-23, but in different formatting and arrangement of information. This creates confusion for designers, who would need to review both documents and piece together where the distinctions are for designing a building and its systems. Where requirements in this standard are aligned with CSA/ASC B651-23, consider just referencing relevant CSA/ASC B651-23 clauses (or noting somewhere obvious that the two requirements are the same) - less reading and opportunity for confusion for a reader. Otherwise, a list of different or additional requirements in this standard will help designers with reconciling the differences. 2) There are many important design considerations in this standard, but it's difficult to visualize how they all fit together. Images in the standard will help designers to understand the intent of the committee and realize the goals of the standard.
Heading text
1. Accessibility Standards Canada: About us
Heading number portion
1.
Submission ID
64669
Submitted by
Vicki.Komisar@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Submitted on
Sun, 03/22/2026 - 12:19
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64707's submission

CAN-ASC-2.4 – Wayfinding and Signage
Feedback items
Item id
1770133546959_284
Heading id
s6.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
In addition, the advancement of technological solutions for signage and wayfinding has been included in the standard to allow its users to understand what must be considered when making technological choices that may benefit persons with disabilities as they navigate indoor or outdoor environments.
What should we change it to?
Remove it, or add the content this sentence describes.
Why should we change it?
There is nothing in the standard about technological wayfinding solutions such as QR codes, RFID tags, nor related software/app solutions.
Heading text
6.1 Background
Heading number portion
6.1
Item id
1770133710094_833
Heading id
s7.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Technological Solutions
What should we change it to?
Add examples such as use of QR codes NFC, and RFID tags.
Why should we change it?
unclear what "technological solutions" refers to, and draft standard does not include use of QR codes NFC, and RFID tags.
Heading text
7.2 Inclusions
Heading number portion
7.2
Item id
1770133820772_105
Heading id
s7.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Principles for the application of new and emerging technologies
What should we change it to?
include locations in the draft standard, because searching the document for "technologies" and "emerging" there does not to be any content.
Why should we change it?
unclear what "new and emerging technologies" refers to, and draft standard does not include use of QR codes NFC, and RFID tags. Searching the document for "technologies" and "emerging" there does not to be any content.
Heading text
7.2 Inclusions
Heading number portion
7.2
Submission ID
64707
Submitted by
adam.worobec@cra-arc.gc.ca
Submitted on
Fri, 02/06/2026 - 13:08
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64729's submission

CAN-ASC-2.4 – Wayfinding and Signage
Feedback items
Item id
1770305950505_723
Heading id
s10.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
An eye condition can also affect a person's lighting needs.
What should we change it to?
An eye condition can also affect a person's lighting needs. Lighting also impacts people who having hearing limitations as they need to see for lip reading or seeing signed language.
Why should we change it?
More accurately portrays the individuals impacted by lighting factors.
Heading text
10.1 Lighting
Heading number portion
10.1
Item id
1770306028942_966
Heading id
s10.1.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Exterior lighting shall:
What should we change it to?
When facilities are operational, exterior lighting shall:
Why should we change it?
This should be specific to facilities only when they are operating/open for use. Having darkness at night is important in natural areas. Lighting 24/7 disrupts wildlife.
Heading text
10.1.5 Exterior lighting
Heading number portion
10.1.5
Item id
1770306130369_140
Heading id
s10.1.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
a) 50 lx and c) 100 lx and d) 50 lx
What should we change it to?
Specify minimum lighting levels. Current wording requires exactly 50 or 100 lx.
Why should we change it?
Maintaining exactly 50 lx or 100 lx can be difficult in outdoor environments.
Heading text
10.1.5 Exterior lighting
Heading number portion
10.1.5
Item id
1770306321050_235
Heading id
s11.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Effective wayfinding enables individuals to:
What should we change it to?
Effective wayfinding enables individuals to discover and use destinations and services independently by allowing them to:
Why should we change it?
Independent access is critically important and specified within legislation. It should be highlighted as a key function of wayfinding that is accomplished by the other means stated.
Heading text
11.1 General
Heading number portion
11.1
Item id
1770306556617_421
Heading id
s11.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Use of the term "extensive areas" in the Wayfinding requirements.
What should we change it to?
Replace "extensive areas" with a term that limits the application to buildings and highly developed areas or include a definition of "extensive areas" that clarifies its meaning.
Why should we change it?
This is the only section of the standard that uses the term “extensive areas”. It is not in the definitions or in other sections of the standard. The application of these wayfinding requirements to “extensive areas” is vague and not appropriate for a wide variety of outdoor spaces. I would expect that a national park would be an “extensive area” as would a “sports field” or a campground. The installation of tactile direction indicators throughout a national park or campground, across/around sports fields (and many other examples) would be inappropriate.
Heading text
11.1 General
Heading number portion
11.1
Item id
1770306805854_519
Heading id
s11.2.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
comply with CSA/ASC B651:23;
What should we change it to?
for buildings comply with CSA/ASC B651:23 and for outdoor spaces comply with ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces.
Why should we change it?
The ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces was specifically developed for outdoor paths of travel. Application of the built environment standard (B651) to natural areas (e.g., National Parks) is inappropriate.
Heading text
11.2.1 Obstacles on paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.1
Item id
1770306900048_98
Heading id
s11.2.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
not have wayfinding or signage elements obstruct the path of travel in accordance with CSA/ASC B651:23
What should we change it to?
for buildings not have wayfinding or signage elements obstruct the path of travel in accordance with CSA/ASC B651:23 and for outdoor spaces not have wayfinding or signage elements obstruct the path of travel in accordance with the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces.
Why should we change it?
The ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces was specifically developed for outdoor paths of travel. Application of the built environment standard (B651) to natural areas (e.g., National Parks) is inappropriate.
Heading text
11.2.1 Obstacles on paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.1
Item id
1770307007558_761
Heading id
s11.2.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be placed in accordance with CSA/ASC B651:23
What should we change it to?
For buildings be placed in accordance with CSA/ASC B651:23 and for outdoor spaces be placed in accordance with the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces.
Why should we change it?
The ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces was specifically developed for all outdoor paths of travel, in built environments and remote locations. Requiring the building environment standard (B651) in all outdoor spaces is not appropriate.
Heading text
11.2.2 Bollards in paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.2
Item id
1770307221966_342
Heading id
s11.2.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
avoid being placed in a triangular or U-shape arrangement as they present a barrier for wheeled mobility devices
What should we change it to?
Remove this specification.
Why should we change it?
This is erroneous information. The arrangement of the bollards doesn’t affect the accessibility - it is the space between the bollards and the available turning or maneuvering space that matters. The design and placement of bollards, guards, curbs, etc. for outdoor spaces are covered in the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces.
Heading text
11.2.2 Bollards in paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.2
Item id
1770307398589_403
Heading id
s11.2.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The specifications provided for bollards in the path of travel should be limited to those that impact wayfinding and that are not covered by the ASC Standards for the Built Environment or Outdoor Spaces.
What should we change it to?
Remove all design and placement requirements covered by other standards.
Why should we change it?
Conflicting requirements in different standards will make them all unenforceable.
Heading text
11.2.2 Bollards in paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.2
Item id
1770307560935_604
Heading id
s11.2.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Note 1 should be a requirement not an advisory note.
What should we change it to?
Change e to read "have a consistent profile throughout their height from ground level.:
Why should we change it?
If bollards have a consistent profile throughout their height from ground level then they will have ground level detection and plinths/tapping rails/etc. will not be required as they would not be wider at the top than at ground level. This simplifies the requirement and mandates a consistent bollard profile (which is important).
Heading text
11.2.2 Bollards in paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.2
Item id
1770309103774_56
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Walking surfaces of interior and exterior paths of travel in the built environment shall:
What should we change it to?
Walking surfaces of exterior paths of travel shall comply with the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces. Walking surfaces of interior paths of travel shall:
Why should we change it?
Exterior paths of travel are not only outside of a building. There are many other exterior paths of travel in outdoor spaces, such as paths to beaches, playgrounds, amphitheaters, fishing piers, etc. and many other facilities in outdoor spaces. All exterior paths of travel have existing requirements in the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces. Conflicting requirements between standards will render all of them unenforceable.
Heading text
11.3 Walking surfaces of interior and exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1770309215434_238
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be firm, stable, slip resistant
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement as it is specified in the ASC standards for the built environment.
Why should we change it?
While firm/stable/slip resistant are important accessibility factors, they do not impact wayfinding. This standard should be confined to wayfinding factors, such as busy patterns, texture, glare, etc.
Heading text
11.3 Walking surfaces of interior and exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1770309386456_201
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
slip resistant
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement.
Why should we change it?
As indicated in Annex A, there is no accepted procedure for measuring slip resistance and therefore there cannot be a specification of what slip resistance is required for accessibility. Slip resistance is definitely a goal from a safety perspective, but creating a standard where compliance cannot be determined makes it unenforceable and casts doubt on the quality of the work in developing the Standard.
Heading text
11.3 Walking surfaces of interior and exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1770309604672_371
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
support orientation and wayfinding at critical navigation points through additional illumination, increased visual contrast, and tactile elements,
What should we change it to?
support orientation and wayfinding at critical navigation points through additional illumination, increased visual contrast, or tactile elements,
Why should we change it?
This requirement is not feasible for outdoor paths of travel (see earlier comment that outdoor paths of travel shall comply with the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces). For indoor paths of travel, there does not appear to be any justification for needing additional illumination and increased visual contrast and tactile elements. In indoor environments, wayfinding at critical navigation points should be established through the combination of additional illumination, increased visual contrast and/or tactile elements so that designers can utilize the techniques that are most suitable for the specific environment.
Heading text
11.3 Walking surfaces of interior and exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1770309887749_871
Heading id
s11.3.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Delete the entire section except for a) iii and a) v and a re-worded a) iv.
What should we change it to?
Paved exterior paths of travel shall: a) incorporate distinctive surface materials, such as tiles, at intersections or key decision points in outdoor plazas to help users identify critical areas and make informed navigation choices; b) include two white transverse lines bordering the crosswalk (for all crosswalks); and c) be simple and facilitate safe street crossings that are not impacted by the colour, design, imagery, texture or materials used to enhance aesthetics. Note 1: Architectural elements may be included to help maintain visibility of wayfinding and signage elements during different seasons. Note 2: Decorative crosswalks should be avoided across roadways that have high volumes of traffic or a high percentage of truck traffic, or both, specifically, major and minor arterial roadways.
Why should we change it?
All other appropriate points in a and b are addressed in the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces. Exterior paths of travel exist far beyond cities and towns, which is why they have been addressed through a separate standard.
Heading text
11.3.1 Additional specifications for exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3.1
Item id
1770310068731_509
Heading id
s11.3.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Remove all specifications related to multi-user facilities (here and throughout the standard).
What should we change it to?
Remove all specifications related to multi-user facilities (here and throughout the standard).
Why should we change it?
The separation of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure is a safety issue, but it does not affect the accessibility of wayfinding systems. Establishing such requirements will prevent the development of shared use facilities, even where it is entirely appropriate (e.g., allowing pedestrians to walk or ski on mountain bike trails).
Heading text
11.3.1 Additional specifications for exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3.1
Item id
1770310161229_931
Heading id
s11.3.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be simple and not interfere with orientation or safe street crossings when used in decorative crosswalks, including elements such as colour, design, imagery, texture, or material that enhance aesthetics beyond standard crosswalk treatments;
What should we change it to?
be simple and facilitate safe street crossings that are not impacted by the colour, design, imagery, texture or materials used to enhance aesthetics.
Why should we change it?
More clearly explains the requirement relative to wayfinding.
Heading text
11.3.1 Additional specifications for exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3.1
Item id
1770310769244_974
Heading id
heading-50
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be placed in areas lacking constructed or natural navigation cues
What should we change it to?
be placed in areas inside buildings lacking constructed or natural navigation cues
Why should we change it?
Without specifying that this requirement applies to buildings it creates a requirement for TWSIs to be installed on sports fields, group campgrounds, etc. and other outdoor spaces where such surfaces would be inappropriate (not to mention not feasible).
Heading text
11.4.1.1 General requirements
Heading number portion
11.4.1.1
Item id
1770310930642_705
Heading id
heading-50
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
b. be arranged in a clear and structured sequence, with defined start and end points, marking intersections, decision points, or potential hazards along the way; c. be of enough depth in the direction of travel to provide adequate detectability and appropriate response by the users, such as stopping and turning; d. have their starting point well-defined and easily identifiable, aligning with constructed and natural navigation cues;
What should we change it to?
b. be arranged in a clear and structured sequence, with well-defined start and end points that are easily identifiable, marking intersections, decision points, or potential hazards along the way; c. be of enough depth in the direction of travel to provide adequate detectability and appropriate response by the users, such as stopping and turning; d. be aligned with constructed and natural navigation cues;
Why should we change it?
Remove redundance of specifying "defined" and "well-defined" starting points.
Heading text
11.4.1.1 General requirements
Heading number portion
11.4.1.1
Item id
1770311047528_762
Heading id
heading-51
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
feature a slip-resistant surface (see Annex A).
What should we change it to?
Remove the requirement for slip resistance.
Why should we change it?
As explained in Annex A, there is no accepted way to measure slip resistance. Nor is there research to define what amount of slip resistance is enough to provide accessibility. As such, a slip resistance standard is not enforceable and creates a requirement that can never be met.
Heading text
11.4.1.2 TWSI detection
Heading number portion
11.4.1.2
Item id
1770311141263_177
Heading id
heading-53
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
or provide guidance at intersecting points in a path
What should we change it to?
Remove this text/requirement.
Why should we change it?
Attention indicators should not be used to provide guidance at intersecting points. They should only be used to identify hazards. Directional indicators should be used to provide guidance if needed. The use of attention indicators to convey information about situations that are not a hazard is a widely recognized problem with current accessibility efforts.
Heading text
11.4.2.1 General
Heading number portion
11.4.2.1
Item id
1770311337535_353
Heading id
heading-53
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
In outdoor environments, cast iron is a durable material which doesn’t create glare and provides contrast.
What should we change it to?
Specify whether the cast iron material is sufficient to provide recognition even if it is black with little colour contrast with the surrounding surface or whether it also has to have the truncated domes and/or be yellow (if that is possible/available).
Why should we change it?
Current note is not clear as to whether black cast iron alone is recommended even if it does not have truncated domes.
Heading text
11.4.2.1 General
Heading number portion
11.4.2.1
Item id
1770311509013_205
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
an attention indicator shall be at the following locations:
What should we change it to?
an attention indicator shall be installed to identify when a hazard exists at the following locations:
Why should we change it?
Attention indicators should indicate a hazard situation. Requiring an attention indicator at the top of ramp that has only a slight incline compared to the approaching floor is not a hazard in the way the edge of stairs or transit platform is.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1770311670819_807
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
at landings longer than 2,100 mm where there are no continuous handrails.
What should we change it to?
Remove the requirement.
Why should we change it?
It is not apparent why a long landing without handrails a hazard. I can see that direction indicators may be required, but I don’t see the hazard. Why would a 2,099mm landing without handrails be safe but a 2,101mm landing without handrails be a hazard? It is critically important that attention indicators only be used to identify hazards. The use of truncated domes for location identification, etc. is causing huge problems because the meaning of these devices becomes unclear.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1770311909317_21
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
b. In outdoor spaces:
What should we change it to?
b. In outdoor spaces comply with the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces.
Why should we change it?
The requirements for outdoor spaces are already specified in the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces. Creating different specifications in different standards makes all of them unenforceable.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1770312025589_710
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
c. Paved and unprotected drop-off edge where:
What should we change it to?
c. Indoor paved and unprotected drop-off edge where:
Why should we change it?
The protection of drop-off edges (paved and unpaved) in outdoor spaces is specified in the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1770312084248_927
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Curb ramps and depressed curbs.
What should we change it to?
Curb ramps and depressed curbs as required by the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces.
Why should we change it?
Prevents duplicate and differing requirements in different Standards.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1770312160348_265
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Where there is a change in direction within a tactile guidance path using direction indicators.
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement.
Why should we change it?
This also should not be an attention indicator - there are directional indicators (i.e., raised bars) that indicate the change in direction. Unless there is a hazard, attention indicators should not used, much less required.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1770312230804_606
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Where an amenity is present along a tactile path to aid in identification.
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement.
Why should we change it?
This should not be an attention indicator (another example of how using attention indicators when there is no hazard creates confusion and inhibits wayfinding). Direction indicators can be used for this purpose, as can different surface materials and other strategies.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1770312327094_957
Heading id
heading-56
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Differing standards for integrated and discrete units.
What should we change it to?
The same standard for light reflectance that is required for accessibility.
Why should we change it?
The same standard for light reflectance that is required for accessibility should be specified regardless of the unit used to provide the luminance.
Heading text
11.4.2.4 Luminance contrast
Heading number portion
11.4.2.4
Item id
1770312429936_245
Heading id
heading-58
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
or set at a 45°
What should we change it to?
Remove this option
Why should we change it?
To my knowledge, the 45-degree alignment is no longer acceptable because it forces people using mobility devices to travel over the bumps. The parallel alignment is designed so that the wheels of a mobility device can travel in between the domes.
Heading text
11.4.2.5.1 Arrangements of a single plate
Heading number portion
11.4.2.5.1
Item id
1770312552352_722
Heading id
s11.4.2.5.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
have a top diameter between 12 mm and 25 mm
What should we change it to?
have a top diameter between 12 mm and 15 mm
Why should we change it?
Although the 25 mm is the current standard, why allow it in the future if research indicates that a 12 mm top diameter is what is needed for the best accessibility.
Heading text
11.4.2.5.3 Dome diameter
Heading number portion
11.4.2.5.3
Item id
1770312614019_341
Heading id
heading-62
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be installed cross the full width of the hazard when used as hazard indicators
What should we change it to?
be installed cross the full width of the hazard
Why should we change it?
Attention indicators should never be used for anything other than as hazard indicators.
Heading text
11.4.2.5.5 Dimensions of attention indicators
Heading number portion
11.4.2.5.5
Item id
1770312836204_804
Heading id
heading-64
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
In large or open spaces, a tactile pathway or guiding line for navigation is required
What should we change it to?
In large or open spaces within a building or building complex, a tactile pathway or guiding line for navigation is required
Why should we change it?
National parks, group campgrounds, sports fields, etc. are all examples of large open spaces where these requirements would not be appropriate. The requirement should be limited to spaces within buildings or a complex of buildings (e.g., the patio between a group of condo buildings). Requirements for outdoor spaces should be in the ASC Standard for Outdoor Spaces.
Heading text
11.4.3.1 General
Heading number portion
11.4.3.1
Item id
1770312981367_268
Heading id
heading-64
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Note 1: Direction indicators are recommended for safety and guidance in outdoor environments.
What should we change it to?
Note 1: Direction indicators are recommended for safety and guidance in the outdoor environments surround a complex of buildings.
Why should we change it?
Direction indicators are not appropriate for all outdoor environments as they cannot be maintained or routinely inspected to ensure they have not shifted or been damaged. There are also much better options for providing direction information in rural/remote outdoor environments. The standard should not restrict the use of more effective design options.
Heading text
11.4.3.1 General
Heading number portion
11.4.3.1
Item id
1770313079038_17
Heading id
heading-68
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Note 3: Excessive height beyond the required level for effective detectability may increase the risk of tripping.
What should we change it to?
Remove this note.
Why should we change it?
This comment doesn’t make sense. If the bars have the same sloped sides as truncated domes, why would they be a tripping hazard and not the domes (which are much taller than 4-5 mm)? Additionally, a height of 4-5 mm is less than the differentiation of many outdoor surfaces, and therefore no more of a hazard (and virtually undetectable).
Heading text
11.4.3.3.2 Height of bars
Heading number portion
11.4.3.3.2
Item id
1770313202311_253
Heading id
s12.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
have all audible and visual signs, including those provided for indoor or outdoor mapping tested by people who will use them to confirm usability and clarity;
What should we change it to?
Remove or clarify who is qualified to do this work.
Why should we change it?
While I fully understand and support the purpose of this requirement, in my consulting career I have made a lot of money fixing accessibility problems that land managers created because of one loud voice that was demanding a certain accommodation. Having someone ask a random individual to test an audible or visual sign is not helpful. That person may hear the audible sign but most other people may not, for example. This clause needs to be removed as it is a burden that will add nothing in terms of accessibility unless it can be written in a way that ensures that the people doing the testing are able to confirm usability and clarity for the intended range of users (not just their personal preference).
Heading text
12.1 General
Heading number portion
12.1
Item id
1770313372668_499
Heading id
s12.2.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
for signs intended to be read by pedestrians, include tactile characters and braille in
What should we change it to?
for signs intended to be read by pedestrians, include tactile characters alone or in conjunction with braille in
Why should we change it?
Individuals who read Braille are a very small (and shrinking) proportion of the population of people with limited vision. Those who can read braille can also detect tactile characters, but most people who would benefit from tactile characters cannot read braille.
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1770313482036_799
Heading id
s12.2.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
identification signs mandatory signs; and warning signs;
What should we change it to?
identification signs regulatory signs; and warning signs;
Why should we change it?
In 12.2 you have specified 7 types of sign. This specification should relate to the specified types of signs (12.2 does not mention "mandatory signs").
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1770313612394_453
Heading id
s12.2.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
for signs intended to be read by pedestrians, include tactile characters
What should we change it to?
for signs intended to be read by pedestrians, include audible sign technologies or tactile characters
Why should we change it?
Audible technologies are much more accessible to more people than either tactile characters or braille. They should be an option that is not only permitted but encouraged.
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1770313705744_940
Heading id
s12.2.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
when installed outdoors, be placed in a location that does not intrude into the path of travel
What should we change it to?
be placed in a location that does not intrude into the path of travel
Why should we change it?
Why only outdoors? Shouldn’t signs in buildings also not block the path of travel?
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1770313871277_816
Heading id
s12.2.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be placed in a location that does not intrude into the path of travel
What should we change it to?
be placed in a location that does not reduce accessibility and is appropriate to the intended effect of the sign
Why should we change it?
Signs such as “wet floor” or hazard warning signs (e.g., radioactive area) that are meant to block the path of travel need to be permitted. Otherwise, we have to rely on someone reading a nearby sign to know they cannot enter a hazardous area.
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1770314359209_966
Heading id
s12.2.9
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
12.2.9 Signs for outdoor spaces
What should we change it to?
12.2.9 Trailhead signs for outdoor spaces
Why should we change it?
This is not “signs for outdoor spaces”. These are specifically trailhead signs that convey accessibility information about the trail environment. There are many other signs in outdoor spaces that would have different requirements.
Heading text
12.2.9 Signs for outdoor spaces
Heading number portion
12.2.9
Item id
1770314455669_296
Heading id
s12.2.9
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
12.2.9 Signs for outdoor spaces
What should we change it to?
The section should specify the requirements for signs (other than trailhead signs) in outdoor spaces.
Why should we change it?
The signs themselves are similar in design to the built environment requirements, but the placement and requirement for sign installation needs to be different for many outdoor spaces (including National Parks, remote outdoor locations, etc.).
Heading text
12.2.9 Signs for outdoor spaces
Heading number portion
12.2.9
Item id
1770314571091_534
Heading id
s12.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
where there is an established need.
What should we change it to?
Remove this text.
Why should we change it?
The requirement for accessibility should never be dependent on "an established need". That is contrary to the intent of the legislation. It is also not appropriate for a Standard to specify a requirement (shall) in conjunction with an option (where there is an established need).
Heading text
12.3 Quality of information
Heading number portion
12.3
Item id
1770314693468_946
Heading id
s12.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
allow for side-by-side format, one language may appear above the other which is known as over-under format. Whether side-by-side or over-under format, both languages should be presented equally in all respects
What should we change it to?
allow for side-by-side format, languages may appear one above the others which is known as over-under format. Whether side-by-side or over-under format, all languages should be presented equally in all respects
Why should we change it?
Many of our national parks have signs in English, French and the local indigenous language. The requirement should be suitable for more than two languages.
Heading text
12.3 Quality of information
Heading number portion
12.3
Item id
1770318807717_55
Heading id
s12.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Motion sensors or QR codes that trigger an audio recording of the information and other technologies that automatically read aloud text are examples of valid options that may be used.
What should we change it to?
Clarify what these may be used for. If they are included as alternative communication methods why are they not in c?
Why should we change it?
Why would you still require other formats if these technologies are used and more accessible?
Heading text
12.3 Quality of information
Heading number portion
12.3
Item id
1770318943804_223
Heading id
s12.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
200 lx
What should we change it to?
100 lx
Why should we change it?
Brighter illumination in low light conditions can make it harder to see/read because of the adjustment of the eyes to drastically different lighting. This requirement is also far too bright to be a requirement in remote or dark sky areas.
Heading text
12.4 Configuration
Heading number portion
12.4
Item id
1770319179997_8
Heading id
s12.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be produced using materials that are durable and resistant to wear or vandalism
What should we change it to?
be produced using materials that will continue to meet accessibility requirements throughout the anticipated life cycle
Why should we change it?
The materials selected will be specific to the setting, environment, anticipated use, etc. Signs in remote backcountry areas of National Parks are unlikely to need to be resistant to vandalism if you have to hike for 7 days to get to them, for example. The Standard needs to specify what is required for accessibility (that the sign continue to function properly). The design of how that is accomplished should not be restricted so designs can be suitable to the environment and intended use and so that better solutions can be used as they are developed.
Heading text
12.4 Configuration
Heading number portion
12.4
Item id
1770319286297_581
Heading id
s12.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
In such cases the messages should be prioritized
What should we change it to?
Specify what is meant by "in such cases".
Why should we change it?
Statement is unclear.
Heading text
12.4 Configuration
Heading number portion
12.4
Item id
1770319367258_494
Heading id
s12.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Note 1: For signs, the most visible colours are white or yellow on a black, charcoal or other dark background, such as brown, dark blue, dark green or purple.
What should we change it to?
Revise to align with a)
Why should we change it?
a) states not to use yellow, blue and green and the note says these are appropriate combinations.
Heading text
12.5 Colour contrast
Heading number portion
12.5
Item id
1770319525629_254
Heading id
s12.6.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
for outdoor toilet facilities
What should we change it to?
for outdoor toilet facilities with walls
Why should we change it?
You cannot require a sign on pit toilets that don’t have walls (e.g., boom boxes). This requirement does not work for more remote outdoor spaces.
Heading text
12.6.1 Location of signs
Heading number portion
12.6.1
Item id
1770319602016_901
Heading id
s12.6.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
For example, at trail intersections the signage can be in advance of the intersection, located to the right at a fixed height above the ground.
What should we change it to?
For example, at trail intersections it may be possible to position the signage consistently in advance of the intersection, located to the right at a fixed height above the ground.
Why should we change it?
While this type of consistency enhances accessibility, it is not always feasible (if there is a cliff on the right side of the trail for example.
Heading text
12.6.1 Location of signs
Heading number portion
12.6.1
Item id
1770325563808_260
Heading id
s12.6.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
as well as on handrails
What should we change it to?
Be more specific as it is unclear.
Why should we change it?
This needs to be more specific. I can see designers unfamiliar with accessibility mounting an 8x10 metal sign “on” the handrail which would be a hazard.
Heading text
12.6.3 Stairs
Heading number portion
12.6.3
Item id
1770325668143_361
Heading id
s12.7.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
include an alternative communication method, such as audible technology, braille or large print booklets
What should we change it to?
This clause is well-written. This requirement should be made consistent throughout the entire Standard.
Why should we change it?
This is well written - but contrasts and is not consistent with other statements throughout the Standard that mandate tactile and braille but exclude other technologies.
Heading text
12.7.1 Tactile sign design and build elements
Heading number portion
12.7.1
Item id
1770325711514_704
Heading id
s12.7.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
when the sign’s location makes providing tactile elements impractical or unsafe;
What should we change it to?
when the sign’s location makes providing tactile elements impractical;
Why should we change it?
Tactile signs should NEVER be put in unsafe locations.
Heading text
12.7.1 Tactile sign design and build elements
Heading number portion
12.7.1
Item id
1770325872520_364
Heading id
s12.7.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be produced using materials that are durable and resistant to wear or vandalism; and be applied (attached, secured, mounted, adhered) using materials that are durable and resistant to wear or vandalism.
What should we change it to?
be produced using materials that are durable to ensure that the tactile sign continues to comply with accessibility requirements throughout the sign's expect life cycle.
Why should we change it?
The choice of material is not an accessibility requirement - what is required is that the sign be maintained in a usable condition. If local conditions require that an inexpensive, paper sign be put up every day rather than a permanent sign that should be permitted if it achieves the accessibility objective.
Heading text
12.7.1 Tactile sign design and build elements
Heading number portion
12.7.1
Item id
1770325960628_24
Heading id
s12.7.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
have a slight elevation above the background of the sign, measuring between 0.8 and 1.5 mm
What should we change it to?
The specified height range should be higher for outdoor areas where individuals may have to be wearing gloves.
Why should we change it?
Enable use of tactile characters in cold northern climates where it is not safe to exposure skin.
Heading text
12.7.4 Tactile characters
Heading number portion
12.7.4
Item id
1770326151396_627
Heading id
s12.7.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be accompanied by an equivalent description in braille for all raised text characters, pictograms, or symbols, including arrows on directional signs
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement.
Why should we change it?
Why is braille needed in addition to tactile characters? Can individuals who read braille not also access tactile characters? 12.8 specifies the only types of signs that require braille - which directly conflicts with this requirement (and others).
Heading text
12.7.4 Tactile characters
Heading number portion
12.7.4
Item id
1770326309253_429
Heading id
s12.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
These include orientation signs, such as directories; directional signs, such as wall-mounted signs with arrows, and identification signs, such as washroom signs
What should we change it to?
These include orientation signs, such as directories; identification signs, such as washroom signs, regulatory signs, such as no smoking, and warning signs, such as area closed for cleaning.
Why should we change it?
All of the types of signs are defined in 12.2. This clause should reference the identified types of signs. 12.2 does not mention directional signs. It is also difficult to understand why braille would not be required on regulatory and warning signs.
Heading text
12.8 Braille
Heading number portion
12.8
Item id
1770326487910_899
Heading id
s12.11.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be tested by people with various abilities to find the right amount of time needed
What should we change it to?
Have a viewing time according to the amount of text or length of the message as specified in the table. (add table)
Why should we change it?
I understand the intent by requiring testing by people with disabilities but as written this is not an enforceable requirement. At minimum, it needs to specify who the people are doing the testing and approval (i.e., training, range of abilities considered, etc. However a better alternative would be to use existing data on reading speeds to create a table of viewing times related to the number of words/characters (similar to viewing distances and character height).
Heading text
12.11.1 General
Heading number portion
12.11.1
Item id
1770326891347_100
Heading id
s12.11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
include features that allow remote activation and programming to adapt to changing circumstances, such as next stop alert systems on transit vehicles and queuing wait times at customer service hubs.
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement.
Why should we change it?
The technical capability for remote activation and programming should not be a requirement for all electronic and digital signs. Many signs will not not require these functions.
Heading text
12.11.3 Design and installation
Heading number portion
12.11.3
Item id
1770327038407_563
Heading id
s12.11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
account for
What should we change it to?
Electronic and digital signage design and installation shall provide clear, accessible communication regardless of variations in: i. noise level and time-of-day traffic considerations; ii. proximity to reflections by ambient lighting; iii. proximity to reflective acoustic surfaces; iv. proximity to physical obstacles to access within the built indoor or outdoor environment; v, direct placement in the path of sunlight; and vi. installation considerations for indoor built environments (i.e., lighting and visual contrast).
Why should we change it?
"account for" is not suitable wording for a requirement. How does one “account for” these things? Simply make a memo that the designer thought about it? One could “account for” noise level, for example, but not necessarily in a way that maintains accessibility.
Heading text
12.11.3 Design and installation
Heading number portion
12.11.3
Item id
1770327490920_143
Heading id
s12.11.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
favour models that allow for video brightness settings to be adjusted
What should we change it to?
enable video brightness settings to be adjusted
Why should we change it?
A standard that states "shall" is an absolute requirement. It is incompatible with terms such as "favour", "if possible", or "where appropriate". If accessibility requires video brightness settings to automatically adjust, then the above suggestion should be used. If the Standard is simply recommending (or favouring) models that allow automatic adjustment then the standard wording would be: Electronic and digital signage illumination design should prioritize models that allow for video brightness settings to be adjusted automatically ...
Heading text
12.11.4 Illumination
Heading number portion
12.11.4
Item id
1770327628624_101
Heading id
s12.11.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
include a backlight feature
What should we change it to?
Remove the design specification for a backlight feature
Why should we change it?
The accessibility requirement is for the specified contrast and visibility to be provided. How that is achieved is not an accessibility issue, the accessibility issue is that the required contrast is achieved. Designers should be able to use whatever technologies are appropriate to achieve the accessibility outcomes. It is quite possible that there are or will be soon much better technologies for achieving contrast and visibility than backlighting. Do not write a standard that prevents people from providing better accessibility options as they develop.
Heading text
12.11.4 Illumination
Heading number portion
12.11.4
Item id
1770327682360_164
Heading id
s12.11.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
favour display technologies such as LED displays that economize on electricity consumption
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement.
Why should we change it?
Although energy conservation is a laudable goal, it is outside of the scope of a signage and wayfinding standard for accessibility.
Heading text
12.11.4 Illumination
Heading number portion
12.11.4
Item id
1770327889764_446
Heading id
s12.11.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Note 2: ... Pixel pitch will dictate the best viewing distance when accessing on-screen information.
What should we change it to?
If pixel pitch determines the accessible viewing distance then this should not be a note. There should be a requirement that specifies the pixel pitch to be used depending on the viewing distance. Create a table of viewing distances with the required pixel pitch.
Why should we change it?
If pixel pitch must be specified according to viewing distance, then there should be a standard (not a note) that specifies the pixel pitch required for accessibility at different viewing distances.
Heading text
12.11.4 Illumination
Heading number portion
12.11.4
Item id
1770328165145_26
Heading id
s12.11.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
have protective coatings or lenses installed on the display surfaces of electronic and digital signs, whether used indoors or outdoors, to promote durability, protect against impact, minimize the impact of weathering, and ensure clear visibility and perception in varying lighting and environmental conditions;
What should we change it to?
Display surfaces of electronic and digital signs, whether used indoors or outdoors, shall be designed with materials that ensure clear visibility and perception in varying lighting and environmental conditions;
Why should we change it?
The choice to use protective coatings, lenses, etc. are not accessibility requirements. The accessibility requirement is that the sign needs to be maintained in a way that it continues to meet the specified requirements (clear visibility and perception in varying lighting and environmental conditions). Whether that requires protective coatings, etc. is a design decision and should be determined by local environmental conditions. Technologies may develop that do not require protective coatings or lenses in order to provide clear visibility and perception. The standard should not require design components but rather should specify the requirements for creating accessibility (regardless of which design components are used to achieve that goal).
Heading text
12.11.5 Reflectivity and clear visibility
Heading number portion
12.11.5
Item id
1770328308911_102
Heading id
s12.11.6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
avoid black backgrounds when placing LED-driven signage in the direct path of sunlight and instead use lighter backgrounds, to maintain the required ratios,
What should we change it to?
Remove a.
Why should we change it?
How the required contrast ratios are achieved is a design decision. As technology develops and environmental factors change a light background may not be the best method and you are restricting the potential use of new materials and technologies.
Heading text
12.11.6 Colour factors
Heading number portion
12.11.6
Item id
1770328396062_25
Heading id
s12.11.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
a best viewing time of 10 to 15 seconds per screen,
What should we change it to?
Create a table of viewing times per amount of test/length of message.
Why should we change it?
The best viewing time will depend on the amount and complexity of the information conveyed on the screen.
Heading text
12.11.7 Messaging
Heading number portion
12.11.7
Item id
1770328467497_400
Heading id
s12.11.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
grade 8 reading level
What should we change it to?
grade 4 reading level
Why should we change it?
Accessibility best practices recommend a maximum grade 4 reading level to ensure that information is understood by most members of the public.
Heading text
12.11.7 Messaging
Heading number portion
12.11.7
Item id
1770328569054_698
Heading id
s12.11.9
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Note: Providing a timbre and tone that is compatible across age demographics and accounts for the impact of hearing loss is good practice.
What should we change it to?
The timbre and tone required for accessibility across age demographics should be specified as a requirement.
Why should we change it?
Timbre and tone are required for accessibility.
Heading text
12.11.9 Acoustics
Heading number portion
12.11.9
Item id
1770328764329_311
Heading id
s13.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The information displayed shall be based on a study and understanding of users' needs, including their location, language proficiency, and specific route requirements.
What should we change it to?
The information displayed should be based on a study and understanding of users' needs, including their location, language proficiency, and specific route requirements.
Why should we change it?
The statement is too vague to be an absolute requirement (shall). What is "a study"? Asking two people for their opinion? Why should language proficiency determine the information displayed? The information needed for accessibility should be displayed in a way that meets the language proficiency needs of most people.
Heading text
13.2 Information displayed
Heading number portion
13.2
Item id
1770328857033_274
Heading id
s13.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Map design and readability shall: use cartographic design elements to enhance clarity and usability such as title/subtitle, neat lines, legend, and orientation indicators when appropriate;
What should we change it to?
Map design and readability should: use cartographic design elements to enhance clarity and usability such as title/subtitle, neat lines, legend, and orientation indicators when appropriate;
Why should we change it?
Shall denotes an absolute requirement. It is not possible to state that something "shall" be provided and then say "where appropriate" because "shall" indicates it always must be provided.
Heading text
13.3 Design
Heading number portion
13.3
Item id
1770328957583_432
Heading id
s13.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
easily understandable
What should we change it to?
conveyed at a Grade 4 reading level.
Why should we change it?
What is easily understandable is subjective and differs from person to person. A requirement (i.e., shall) needs to provide the enforceable requirement that will provide the required accessibility.
Heading text
13.5 Legend
Heading number portion
13.5
Item id
1770329086184_959
Heading id
s13.6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Maps shall include an index as part of the location plan or guide map
What should we change it to?
Where multiple similar facilities are provided, maps shall include an index as part of the location plan or guide map.
Why should we change it?
If all of the features on a map are illustrated in the legend, an index should not be required. For example, an index is helpful in a map of a shopping mall. It does not seem like an appropriate requirement for a national park map.
Heading text
13.6 Index
Heading number portion
13.6
Item id
1770329202036_638
Heading id
s13.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
typical walking times
What should we change it to?
Remove this text.
Why should we change it?
Typical walking times should not be used as walking speeds vary widely. Convey distances so each user can determine how long it will take them to cover that distance. Stating it is 2 km and a typical walking speed is 4 km per hour sets an expectation that the individual will cover the distance in 30 minutes. Individuals who walk more slowly often find themselves on trails after dark because they were unable to achieve the typical walking speed.
Heading text
13.7 Scale
Heading number portion
13.7
Item id
1770329268141_47
Heading id
s13.9
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
13.9
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement.
Why should we change it?
f the map is required to meet accessibility requirements 24/7/365 then this is unnecessary.
Heading text
13.9 Commercial elements
Heading number portion
13.9
Item id
1770329384728_871
Heading id
s13.10
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
Location plans
What should we change it to?
Maps
Why should we change it?
Clause 13 addresses Maps (non-tactile). Why these requirements would apply to location plans and how those are different from maps is unclear.
Heading text
13.10 Construction and maintenance
Heading number portion
13.10
Item id
1770329512430_497
Heading id
s13
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Currently there is no perfect solution.
What should we change it to?
Currently there is no perfect solution.
Why should we change it?
This is a critically important statement and is exactly why the requirement for a slip resistant surface is not appropriate at this time.
Heading text
14. Annex A: Slip resistance measurement (informative)
Heading number portion
14.
Submission ID
64729
Submitted by
plongmuir@cheo.on.ca
Submitted on
Thu, 02/05/2026 - 17:13
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64729's submission

CAN-ASC-2.4 – Wayfinding and Signage
Feedback items
Item id
1770305950505_723
Heading id
s10.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
An eye condition can also affect a person's lighting needs.
What should we change it to?
An eye condition can also affect a person's lighting needs. Lighting also impacts people who having hearing limitations as they need to see for lip reading or seeing signed language.
Why should we change it?
More accurately portrays the individuals impacted by lighting factors.
Heading text
10.1 Lighting
Heading number portion
10.1
Item id
1770306028942_966
Heading id
s10.1.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Exterior lighting shall:
What should we change it to?
When facilities are operational, exterior lighting shall:
Why should we change it?
This should be specific to facilities only when they are operating/open for use. Having darkness at night is important in natural areas. Lighting 24/7 disrupts wildlife.
Heading text
10.1.5 Exterior lighting
Heading number portion
10.1.5
Item id
1770306130369_140
Heading id
s10.1.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
a) 50 lx and c) 100 lx and d) 50 lx
What should we change it to?
Specify minimum lighting levels. Current wording requires exactly 50 or 100 lx.
Why should we change it?
Maintaining exactly 50 lx or 100 lx can be difficult in outdoor environments.
Heading text
10.1.5 Exterior lighting
Heading number portion
10.1.5
Item id
1770306321050_235
Heading id
s11.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Effective wayfinding enables individuals to:
What should we change it to?
Effective wayfinding enables individuals to discover and use destinations and services independently by allowing them to:
Why should we change it?
Independent access is critically important and specified within legislation. It should be highlighted as a key function of wayfinding that is accomplished by the other means stated.
Heading text
11.1 General
Heading number portion
11.1
Item id
1770306556617_421
Heading id
s11.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Use of the term "extensive areas" in the Wayfinding requirements.
What should we change it to?
Replace "extensive areas" with a term that limits the application to buildings and highly developed areas or include a definition of "extensive areas" that clarifies its meaning.
Why should we change it?
This is the only section of the standard that uses the term “extensive areas”. It is not in the definitions or in other sections of the standard. The application of these wayfinding requirements to “extensive areas” is vague and not appropriate for a wide variety of outdoor spaces. I would expect that a national park would be an “extensive area” as would a “sports field” or a campground. The installation of tactile direction indicators throughout a national park or campground, across/around sports fields (and many other examples) would be inappropriate.
Heading text
11.1 General
Heading number portion
11.1
Item id
1770306805854_519
Heading id
s11.2.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
comply with CSA/ASC B651:23;
What should we change it to?
for buildings comply with CSA/ASC B651:23 and for outdoor spaces comply with ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces.
Why should we change it?
The ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces was specifically developed for outdoor paths of travel. Application of the built environment standard (B651) to natural areas (e.g., National Parks) is inappropriate.
Heading text
11.2.1 Obstacles on paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.1
Item id
1770306900048_98
Heading id
s11.2.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
not have wayfinding or signage elements obstruct the path of travel in accordance with CSA/ASC B651:23
What should we change it to?
for buildings not have wayfinding or signage elements obstruct the path of travel in accordance with CSA/ASC B651:23 and for outdoor spaces not have wayfinding or signage elements obstruct the path of travel in accordance with the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces.
Why should we change it?
The ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces was specifically developed for outdoor paths of travel. Application of the built environment standard (B651) to natural areas (e.g., National Parks) is inappropriate.
Heading text
11.2.1 Obstacles on paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.1
Item id
1770307007558_761
Heading id
s11.2.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be placed in accordance with CSA/ASC B651:23
What should we change it to?
For buildings be placed in accordance with CSA/ASC B651:23 and for outdoor spaces be placed in accordance with the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces.
Why should we change it?
The ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces was specifically developed for all outdoor paths of travel, in built environments and remote locations. Requiring the building environment standard (B651) in all outdoor spaces is not appropriate.
Heading text
11.2.2 Bollards in paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.2
Item id
1770307221966_342
Heading id
s11.2.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
avoid being placed in a triangular or U-shape arrangement as they present a barrier for wheeled mobility devices
What should we change it to?
Remove this specification.
Why should we change it?
This is erroneous information. The arrangement of the bollards doesn’t affect the accessibility - it is the space between the bollards and the available turning or maneuvering space that matters. The design and placement of bollards, guards, curbs, etc. for outdoor spaces are covered in the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces.
Heading text
11.2.2 Bollards in paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.2
Item id
1770307398589_403
Heading id
s11.2.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The specifications provided for bollards in the path of travel should be limited to those that impact wayfinding and that are not covered by the ASC Standards for the Built Environment or Outdoor Spaces.
What should we change it to?
Remove all design and placement requirements covered by other standards.
Why should we change it?
Conflicting requirements in different standards will make them all unenforceable.
Heading text
11.2.2 Bollards in paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.2
Item id
1770307560935_604
Heading id
s11.2.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Note 1 should be a requirement not an advisory note.
What should we change it to?
Change e to read "have a consistent profile throughout their height from ground level.:
Why should we change it?
If bollards have a consistent profile throughout their height from ground level then they will have ground level detection and plinths/tapping rails/etc. will not be required as they would not be wider at the top than at ground level. This simplifies the requirement and mandates a consistent bollard profile (which is important).
Heading text
11.2.2 Bollards in paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.2
Item id
1770309103774_56
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Walking surfaces of interior and exterior paths of travel in the built environment shall:
What should we change it to?
Walking surfaces of exterior paths of travel shall comply with the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces. Walking surfaces of interior paths of travel shall:
Why should we change it?
Exterior paths of travel are not only outside of a building. There are many other exterior paths of travel in outdoor spaces, such as paths to beaches, playgrounds, amphitheaters, fishing piers, etc. and many other facilities in outdoor spaces. All exterior paths of travel have existing requirements in the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces. Conflicting requirements between standards will render all of them unenforceable.
Heading text
11.3 Walking surfaces of interior and exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1770309215434_238
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be firm, stable, slip resistant
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement as it is specified in the ASC standards for the built environment.
Why should we change it?
While firm/stable/slip resistant are important accessibility factors, they do not impact wayfinding. This standard should be confined to wayfinding factors, such as busy patterns, texture, glare, etc.
Heading text
11.3 Walking surfaces of interior and exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1770309386456_201
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
slip resistant
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement.
Why should we change it?
As indicated in Annex A, there is no accepted procedure for measuring slip resistance and therefore there cannot be a specification of what slip resistance is required for accessibility. Slip resistance is definitely a goal from a safety perspective, but creating a standard where compliance cannot be determined makes it unenforceable and casts doubt on the quality of the work in developing the Standard.
Heading text
11.3 Walking surfaces of interior and exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1770309604672_371
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
support orientation and wayfinding at critical navigation points through additional illumination, increased visual contrast, and tactile elements,
What should we change it to?
support orientation and wayfinding at critical navigation points through additional illumination, increased visual contrast, or tactile elements,
Why should we change it?
This requirement is not feasible for outdoor paths of travel (see earlier comment that outdoor paths of travel shall comply with the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces). For indoor paths of travel, there does not appear to be any justification for needing additional illumination and increased visual contrast and tactile elements. In indoor environments, wayfinding at critical navigation points should be established through the combination of additional illumination, increased visual contrast and/or tactile elements so that designers can utilize the techniques that are most suitable for the specific environment.
Heading text
11.3 Walking surfaces of interior and exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1770309887749_871
Heading id
s11.3.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Delete the entire section except for a) iii and a) v and a re-worded a) iv.
What should we change it to?
Paved exterior paths of travel shall: a) incorporate distinctive surface materials, such as tiles, at intersections or key decision points in outdoor plazas to help users identify critical areas and make informed navigation choices; b) include two white transverse lines bordering the crosswalk (for all crosswalks); and c) be simple and facilitate safe street crossings that are not impacted by the colour, design, imagery, texture or materials used to enhance aesthetics. Note 1: Architectural elements may be included to help maintain visibility of wayfinding and signage elements during different seasons. Note 2: Decorative crosswalks should be avoided across roadways that have high volumes of traffic or a high percentage of truck traffic, or both, specifically, major and minor arterial roadways.
Why should we change it?
All other appropriate points in a and b are addressed in the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces. Exterior paths of travel exist far beyond cities and towns, which is why they have been addressed through a separate standard.
Heading text
11.3.1 Additional specifications for exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3.1
Item id
1770310068731_509
Heading id
s11.3.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Remove all specifications related to multi-user facilities (here and throughout the standard).
What should we change it to?
Remove all specifications related to multi-user facilities (here and throughout the standard).
Why should we change it?
The separation of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure is a safety issue, but it does not affect the accessibility of wayfinding systems. Establishing such requirements will prevent the development of shared use facilities, even where it is entirely appropriate (e.g., allowing pedestrians to walk or ski on mountain bike trails).
Heading text
11.3.1 Additional specifications for exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3.1
Item id
1770310161229_931
Heading id
s11.3.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be simple and not interfere with orientation or safe street crossings when used in decorative crosswalks, including elements such as colour, design, imagery, texture, or material that enhance aesthetics beyond standard crosswalk treatments;
What should we change it to?
be simple and facilitate safe street crossings that are not impacted by the colour, design, imagery, texture or materials used to enhance aesthetics.
Why should we change it?
More clearly explains the requirement relative to wayfinding.
Heading text
11.3.1 Additional specifications for exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3.1
Item id
1770310769244_974
Heading id
heading-50
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be placed in areas lacking constructed or natural navigation cues
What should we change it to?
be placed in areas inside buildings lacking constructed or natural navigation cues
Why should we change it?
Without specifying that this requirement applies to buildings it creates a requirement for TWSIs to be installed on sports fields, group campgrounds, etc. and other outdoor spaces where such surfaces would be inappropriate (not to mention not feasible).
Heading text
11.4.1.1 General requirements
Heading number portion
11.4.1.1
Item id
1770310930642_705
Heading id
heading-50
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
b. be arranged in a clear and structured sequence, with defined start and end points, marking intersections, decision points, or potential hazards along the way; c. be of enough depth in the direction of travel to provide adequate detectability and appropriate response by the users, such as stopping and turning; d. have their starting point well-defined and easily identifiable, aligning with constructed and natural navigation cues;
What should we change it to?
b. be arranged in a clear and structured sequence, with well-defined start and end points that are easily identifiable, marking intersections, decision points, or potential hazards along the way; c. be of enough depth in the direction of travel to provide adequate detectability and appropriate response by the users, such as stopping and turning; d. be aligned with constructed and natural navigation cues;
Why should we change it?
Remove redundance of specifying "defined" and "well-defined" starting points.
Heading text
11.4.1.1 General requirements
Heading number portion
11.4.1.1
Item id
1770311047528_762
Heading id
heading-51
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
feature a slip-resistant surface (see Annex A).
What should we change it to?
Remove the requirement for slip resistance.
Why should we change it?
As explained in Annex A, there is no accepted way to measure slip resistance. Nor is there research to define what amount of slip resistance is enough to provide accessibility. As such, a slip resistance standard is not enforceable and creates a requirement that can never be met.
Heading text
11.4.1.2 TWSI detection
Heading number portion
11.4.1.2
Item id
1770311141263_177
Heading id
heading-53
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
or provide guidance at intersecting points in a path
What should we change it to?
Remove this text/requirement.
Why should we change it?
Attention indicators should not be used to provide guidance at intersecting points. They should only be used to identify hazards. Directional indicators should be used to provide guidance if needed. The use of attention indicators to convey information about situations that are not a hazard is a widely recognized problem with current accessibility efforts.
Heading text
11.4.2.1 General
Heading number portion
11.4.2.1
Item id
1770311337535_353
Heading id
heading-53
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
In outdoor environments, cast iron is a durable material which doesn’t create glare and provides contrast.
What should we change it to?
Specify whether the cast iron material is sufficient to provide recognition even if it is black with little colour contrast with the surrounding surface or whether it also has to have the truncated domes and/or be yellow (if that is possible/available).
Why should we change it?
Current note is not clear as to whether black cast iron alone is recommended even if it does not have truncated domes.
Heading text
11.4.2.1 General
Heading number portion
11.4.2.1
Item id
1770311509013_205
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
an attention indicator shall be at the following locations:
What should we change it to?
an attention indicator shall be installed to identify when a hazard exists at the following locations:
Why should we change it?
Attention indicators should indicate a hazard situation. Requiring an attention indicator at the top of ramp that has only a slight incline compared to the approaching floor is not a hazard in the way the edge of stairs or transit platform is.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1770311670819_807
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
at landings longer than 2,100 mm where there are no continuous handrails.
What should we change it to?
Remove the requirement.
Why should we change it?
It is not apparent why a long landing without handrails a hazard. I can see that direction indicators may be required, but I don’t see the hazard. Why would a 2,099mm landing without handrails be safe but a 2,101mm landing without handrails be a hazard? It is critically important that attention indicators only be used to identify hazards. The use of truncated domes for location identification, etc. is causing huge problems because the meaning of these devices becomes unclear.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1770311909317_21
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
b. In outdoor spaces:
What should we change it to?
b. In outdoor spaces comply with the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces.
Why should we change it?
The requirements for outdoor spaces are already specified in the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces. Creating different specifications in different standards makes all of them unenforceable.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1770312025589_710
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
c. Paved and unprotected drop-off edge where:
What should we change it to?
c. Indoor paved and unprotected drop-off edge where:
Why should we change it?
The protection of drop-off edges (paved and unpaved) in outdoor spaces is specified in the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1770312084248_927
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Curb ramps and depressed curbs.
What should we change it to?
Curb ramps and depressed curbs as required by the ASC Standard on Outdoor Spaces.
Why should we change it?
Prevents duplicate and differing requirements in different Standards.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1770312160348_265
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Where there is a change in direction within a tactile guidance path using direction indicators.
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement.
Why should we change it?
This also should not be an attention indicator - there are directional indicators (i.e., raised bars) that indicate the change in direction. Unless there is a hazard, attention indicators should not used, much less required.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1770312230804_606
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Where an amenity is present along a tactile path to aid in identification.
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement.
Why should we change it?
This should not be an attention indicator (another example of how using attention indicators when there is no hazard creates confusion and inhibits wayfinding). Direction indicators can be used for this purpose, as can different surface materials and other strategies.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1770312327094_957
Heading id
heading-56
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Differing standards for integrated and discrete units.
What should we change it to?
The same standard for light reflectance that is required for accessibility.
Why should we change it?
The same standard for light reflectance that is required for accessibility should be specified regardless of the unit used to provide the luminance.
Heading text
11.4.2.4 Luminance contrast
Heading number portion
11.4.2.4
Item id
1770312429936_245
Heading id
heading-58
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
or set at a 45°
What should we change it to?
Remove this option
Why should we change it?
To my knowledge, the 45-degree alignment is no longer acceptable because it forces people using mobility devices to travel over the bumps. The parallel alignment is designed so that the wheels of a mobility device can travel in between the domes.
Heading text
11.4.2.5.1 Arrangements of a single plate
Heading number portion
11.4.2.5.1
Item id
1770312552352_722
Heading id
s11.4.2.5.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
have a top diameter between 12 mm and 25 mm
What should we change it to?
have a top diameter between 12 mm and 15 mm
Why should we change it?
Although the 25 mm is the current standard, why allow it in the future if research indicates that a 12 mm top diameter is what is needed for the best accessibility.
Heading text
11.4.2.5.3 Dome diameter
Heading number portion
11.4.2.5.3
Item id
1770312614019_341
Heading id
heading-62
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be installed cross the full width of the hazard when used as hazard indicators
What should we change it to?
be installed cross the full width of the hazard
Why should we change it?
Attention indicators should never be used for anything other than as hazard indicators.
Heading text
11.4.2.5.5 Dimensions of attention indicators
Heading number portion
11.4.2.5.5
Item id
1770312836204_804
Heading id
heading-64
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
In large or open spaces, a tactile pathway or guiding line for navigation is required
What should we change it to?
In large or open spaces within a building or building complex, a tactile pathway or guiding line for navigation is required
Why should we change it?
National parks, group campgrounds, sports fields, etc. are all examples of large open spaces where these requirements would not be appropriate. The requirement should be limited to spaces within buildings or a complex of buildings (e.g., the patio between a group of condo buildings). Requirements for outdoor spaces should be in the ASC Standard for Outdoor Spaces.
Heading text
11.4.3.1 General
Heading number portion
11.4.3.1
Item id
1770312981367_268
Heading id
heading-64
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Note 1: Direction indicators are recommended for safety and guidance in outdoor environments.
What should we change it to?
Note 1: Direction indicators are recommended for safety and guidance in the outdoor environments surround a complex of buildings.
Why should we change it?
Direction indicators are not appropriate for all outdoor environments as they cannot be maintained or routinely inspected to ensure they have not shifted or been damaged. There are also much better options for providing direction information in rural/remote outdoor environments. The standard should not restrict the use of more effective design options.
Heading text
11.4.3.1 General
Heading number portion
11.4.3.1
Item id
1770313079038_17
Heading id
heading-68
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Note 3: Excessive height beyond the required level for effective detectability may increase the risk of tripping.
What should we change it to?
Remove this note.
Why should we change it?
This comment doesn’t make sense. If the bars have the same sloped sides as truncated domes, why would they be a tripping hazard and not the domes (which are much taller than 4-5 mm)? Additionally, a height of 4-5 mm is less than the differentiation of many outdoor surfaces, and therefore no more of a hazard (and virtually undetectable).
Heading text
11.4.3.3.2 Height of bars
Heading number portion
11.4.3.3.2
Item id
1770313202311_253
Heading id
s12.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
have all audible and visual signs, including those provided for indoor or outdoor mapping tested by people who will use them to confirm usability and clarity;
What should we change it to?
Remove or clarify who is qualified to do this work.
Why should we change it?
While I fully understand and support the purpose of this requirement, in my consulting career I have made a lot of money fixing accessibility problems that land managers created because of one loud voice that was demanding a certain accommodation. Having someone ask a random individual to test an audible or visual sign is not helpful. That person may hear the audible sign but most other people may not, for example. This clause needs to be removed as it is a burden that will add nothing in terms of accessibility unless it can be written in a way that ensures that the people doing the testing are able to confirm usability and clarity for the intended range of users (not just their personal preference).
Heading text
12.1 General
Heading number portion
12.1
Item id
1770313372668_499
Heading id
s12.2.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
for signs intended to be read by pedestrians, include tactile characters and braille in
What should we change it to?
for signs intended to be read by pedestrians, include tactile characters alone or in conjunction with braille in
Why should we change it?
Individuals who read Braille are a very small (and shrinking) proportion of the population of people with limited vision. Those who can read braille can also detect tactile characters, but most people who would benefit from tactile characters cannot read braille.
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1770313482036_799
Heading id
s12.2.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
identification signs mandatory signs; and warning signs;
What should we change it to?
identification signs regulatory signs; and warning signs;
Why should we change it?
In 12.2 you have specified 7 types of sign. This specification should relate to the specified types of signs (12.2 does not mention "mandatory signs").
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1770313612394_453
Heading id
s12.2.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
for signs intended to be read by pedestrians, include tactile characters
What should we change it to?
for signs intended to be read by pedestrians, include audible sign technologies or tactile characters
Why should we change it?
Audible technologies are much more accessible to more people than either tactile characters or braille. They should be an option that is not only permitted but encouraged.
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1770313705744_940
Heading id
s12.2.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
when installed outdoors, be placed in a location that does not intrude into the path of travel
What should we change it to?
be placed in a location that does not intrude into the path of travel
Why should we change it?
Why only outdoors? Shouldn’t signs in buildings also not block the path of travel?
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1770313871277_816
Heading id
s12.2.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be placed in a location that does not intrude into the path of travel
What should we change it to?
be placed in a location that does not reduce accessibility and is appropriate to the intended effect of the sign
Why should we change it?
Signs such as “wet floor” or hazard warning signs (e.g., radioactive area) that are meant to block the path of travel need to be permitted. Otherwise, we have to rely on someone reading a nearby sign to know they cannot enter a hazardous area.
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1770314359209_966
Heading id
s12.2.9
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
12.2.9 Signs for outdoor spaces
What should we change it to?
12.2.9 Trailhead signs for outdoor spaces
Why should we change it?
This is not “signs for outdoor spaces”. These are specifically trailhead signs that convey accessibility information about the trail environment. There are many other signs in outdoor spaces that would have different requirements.
Heading text
12.2.9 Signs for outdoor spaces
Heading number portion
12.2.9
Item id
1770314455669_296
Heading id
s12.2.9
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
12.2.9 Signs for outdoor spaces
What should we change it to?
The section should specify the requirements for signs (other than trailhead signs) in outdoor spaces.
Why should we change it?
The signs themselves are similar in design to the built environment requirements, but the placement and requirement for sign installation needs to be different for many outdoor spaces (including National Parks, remote outdoor locations, etc.).
Heading text
12.2.9 Signs for outdoor spaces
Heading number portion
12.2.9
Item id
1770314571091_534
Heading id
s12.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
where there is an established need.
What should we change it to?
Remove this text.
Why should we change it?
The requirement for accessibility should never be dependent on "an established need". That is contrary to the intent of the legislation. It is also not appropriate for a Standard to specify a requirement (shall) in conjunction with an option (where there is an established need).
Heading text
12.3 Quality of information
Heading number portion
12.3
Item id
1770314693468_946
Heading id
s12.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
allow for side-by-side format, one language may appear above the other which is known as over-under format. Whether side-by-side or over-under format, both languages should be presented equally in all respects
What should we change it to?
allow for side-by-side format, languages may appear one above the others which is known as over-under format. Whether side-by-side or over-under format, all languages should be presented equally in all respects
Why should we change it?
Many of our national parks have signs in English, French and the local indigenous language. The requirement should be suitable for more than two languages.
Heading text
12.3 Quality of information
Heading number portion
12.3
Item id
1770318807717_55
Heading id
s12.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Motion sensors or QR codes that trigger an audio recording of the information and other technologies that automatically read aloud text are examples of valid options that may be used.
What should we change it to?
Clarify what these may be used for. If they are included as alternative communication methods why are they not in c?
Why should we change it?
Why would you still require other formats if these technologies are used and more accessible?
Heading text
12.3 Quality of information
Heading number portion
12.3
Item id
1770318943804_223
Heading id
s12.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
200 lx
What should we change it to?
100 lx
Why should we change it?
Brighter illumination in low light conditions can make it harder to see/read because of the adjustment of the eyes to drastically different lighting. This requirement is also far too bright to be a requirement in remote or dark sky areas.
Heading text
12.4 Configuration
Heading number portion
12.4
Item id
1770319179997_8
Heading id
s12.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be produced using materials that are durable and resistant to wear or vandalism
What should we change it to?
be produced using materials that will continue to meet accessibility requirements throughout the anticipated life cycle
Why should we change it?
The materials selected will be specific to the setting, environment, anticipated use, etc. Signs in remote backcountry areas of National Parks are unlikely to need to be resistant to vandalism if you have to hike for 7 days to get to them, for example. The Standard needs to specify what is required for accessibility (that the sign continue to function properly). The design of how that is accomplished should not be restricted so designs can be suitable to the environment and intended use and so that better solutions can be used as they are developed.
Heading text
12.4 Configuration
Heading number portion
12.4
Item id
1770319286297_581
Heading id
s12.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
In such cases the messages should be prioritized
What should we change it to?
Specify what is meant by "in such cases".
Why should we change it?
Statement is unclear.
Heading text
12.4 Configuration
Heading number portion
12.4
Item id
1770319367258_494
Heading id
s12.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Note 1: For signs, the most visible colours are white or yellow on a black, charcoal or other dark background, such as brown, dark blue, dark green or purple.
What should we change it to?
Revise to align with a)
Why should we change it?
a) states not to use yellow, blue and green and the note says these are appropriate combinations.
Heading text
12.5 Colour contrast
Heading number portion
12.5
Item id
1770319525629_254
Heading id
s12.6.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
for outdoor toilet facilities
What should we change it to?
for outdoor toilet facilities with walls
Why should we change it?
You cannot require a sign on pit toilets that don’t have walls (e.g., boom boxes). This requirement does not work for more remote outdoor spaces.
Heading text
12.6.1 Location of signs
Heading number portion
12.6.1
Item id
1770319602016_901
Heading id
s12.6.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
For example, at trail intersections the signage can be in advance of the intersection, located to the right at a fixed height above the ground.
What should we change it to?
For example, at trail intersections it may be possible to position the signage consistently in advance of the intersection, located to the right at a fixed height above the ground.
Why should we change it?
While this type of consistency enhances accessibility, it is not always feasible (if there is a cliff on the right side of the trail for example.
Heading text
12.6.1 Location of signs
Heading number portion
12.6.1
Item id
1770325563808_260
Heading id
s12.6.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
as well as on handrails
What should we change it to?
Be more specific as it is unclear.
Why should we change it?
This needs to be more specific. I can see designers unfamiliar with accessibility mounting an 8x10 metal sign “on” the handrail which would be a hazard.
Heading text
12.6.3 Stairs
Heading number portion
12.6.3
Item id
1770325668143_361
Heading id
s12.7.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
include an alternative communication method, such as audible technology, braille or large print booklets
What should we change it to?
This clause is well-written. This requirement should be made consistent throughout the entire Standard.
Why should we change it?
This is well written - but contrasts and is not consistent with other statements throughout the Standard that mandate tactile and braille but exclude other technologies.
Heading text
12.7.1 Tactile sign design and build elements
Heading number portion
12.7.1
Item id
1770325711514_704
Heading id
s12.7.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
when the sign’s location makes providing tactile elements impractical or unsafe;
What should we change it to?
when the sign’s location makes providing tactile elements impractical;
Why should we change it?
Tactile signs should NEVER be put in unsafe locations.
Heading text
12.7.1 Tactile sign design and build elements
Heading number portion
12.7.1
Item id
1770325872520_364
Heading id
s12.7.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be produced using materials that are durable and resistant to wear or vandalism; and be applied (attached, secured, mounted, adhered) using materials that are durable and resistant to wear or vandalism.
What should we change it to?
be produced using materials that are durable to ensure that the tactile sign continues to comply with accessibility requirements throughout the sign's expect life cycle.
Why should we change it?
The choice of material is not an accessibility requirement - what is required is that the sign be maintained in a usable condition. If local conditions require that an inexpensive, paper sign be put up every day rather than a permanent sign that should be permitted if it achieves the accessibility objective.
Heading text
12.7.1 Tactile sign design and build elements
Heading number portion
12.7.1
Item id
1770325960628_24
Heading id
s12.7.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
have a slight elevation above the background of the sign, measuring between 0.8 and 1.5 mm
What should we change it to?
The specified height range should be higher for outdoor areas where individuals may have to be wearing gloves.
Why should we change it?
Enable use of tactile characters in cold northern climates where it is not safe to exposure skin.
Heading text
12.7.4 Tactile characters
Heading number portion
12.7.4
Item id
1770326151396_627
Heading id
s12.7.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be accompanied by an equivalent description in braille for all raised text characters, pictograms, or symbols, including arrows on directional signs
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement.
Why should we change it?
Why is braille needed in addition to tactile characters? Can individuals who read braille not also access tactile characters? 12.8 specifies the only types of signs that require braille - which directly conflicts with this requirement (and others).
Heading text
12.7.4 Tactile characters
Heading number portion
12.7.4
Item id
1770326309253_429
Heading id
s12.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
These include orientation signs, such as directories; directional signs, such as wall-mounted signs with arrows, and identification signs, such as washroom signs
What should we change it to?
These include orientation signs, such as directories; identification signs, such as washroom signs, regulatory signs, such as no smoking, and warning signs, such as area closed for cleaning.
Why should we change it?
All of the types of signs are defined in 12.2. This clause should reference the identified types of signs. 12.2 does not mention directional signs. It is also difficult to understand why braille would not be required on regulatory and warning signs.
Heading text
12.8 Braille
Heading number portion
12.8
Item id
1770326487910_899
Heading id
s12.11.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
be tested by people with various abilities to find the right amount of time needed
What should we change it to?
Have a viewing time according to the amount of text or length of the message as specified in the table. (add table)
Why should we change it?
I understand the intent by requiring testing by people with disabilities but as written this is not an enforceable requirement. At minimum, it needs to specify who the people are doing the testing and approval (i.e., training, range of abilities considered, etc. However a better alternative would be to use existing data on reading speeds to create a table of viewing times related to the number of words/characters (similar to viewing distances and character height).
Heading text
12.11.1 General
Heading number portion
12.11.1
Item id
1770326891347_100
Heading id
s12.11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
include features that allow remote activation and programming to adapt to changing circumstances, such as next stop alert systems on transit vehicles and queuing wait times at customer service hubs.
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement.
Why should we change it?
The technical capability for remote activation and programming should not be a requirement for all electronic and digital signs. Many signs will not not require these functions.
Heading text
12.11.3 Design and installation
Heading number portion
12.11.3
Item id
1770327038407_563
Heading id
s12.11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
account for
What should we change it to?
Electronic and digital signage design and installation shall provide clear, accessible communication regardless of variations in: i. noise level and time-of-day traffic considerations; ii. proximity to reflections by ambient lighting; iii. proximity to reflective acoustic surfaces; iv. proximity to physical obstacles to access within the built indoor or outdoor environment; v, direct placement in the path of sunlight; and vi. installation considerations for indoor built environments (i.e., lighting and visual contrast).
Why should we change it?
"account for" is not suitable wording for a requirement. How does one “account for” these things? Simply make a memo that the designer thought about it? One could “account for” noise level, for example, but not necessarily in a way that maintains accessibility.
Heading text
12.11.3 Design and installation
Heading number portion
12.11.3
Item id
1770327490920_143
Heading id
s12.11.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
favour models that allow for video brightness settings to be adjusted
What should we change it to?
enable video brightness settings to be adjusted
Why should we change it?
A standard that states "shall" is an absolute requirement. It is incompatible with terms such as "favour", "if possible", or "where appropriate". If accessibility requires video brightness settings to automatically adjust, then the above suggestion should be used. If the Standard is simply recommending (or favouring) models that allow automatic adjustment then the standard wording would be: Electronic and digital signage illumination design should prioritize models that allow for video brightness settings to be adjusted automatically ...
Heading text
12.11.4 Illumination
Heading number portion
12.11.4
Item id
1770327628624_101
Heading id
s12.11.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
include a backlight feature
What should we change it to?
Remove the design specification for a backlight feature
Why should we change it?
The accessibility requirement is for the specified contrast and visibility to be provided. How that is achieved is not an accessibility issue, the accessibility issue is that the required contrast is achieved. Designers should be able to use whatever technologies are appropriate to achieve the accessibility outcomes. It is quite possible that there are or will be soon much better technologies for achieving contrast and visibility than backlighting. Do not write a standard that prevents people from providing better accessibility options as they develop.
Heading text
12.11.4 Illumination
Heading number portion
12.11.4
Item id
1770327682360_164
Heading id
s12.11.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
favour display technologies such as LED displays that economize on electricity consumption
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement.
Why should we change it?
Although energy conservation is a laudable goal, it is outside of the scope of a signage and wayfinding standard for accessibility.
Heading text
12.11.4 Illumination
Heading number portion
12.11.4
Item id
1770327889764_446
Heading id
s12.11.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Note 2: ... Pixel pitch will dictate the best viewing distance when accessing on-screen information.
What should we change it to?
If pixel pitch determines the accessible viewing distance then this should not be a note. There should be a requirement that specifies the pixel pitch to be used depending on the viewing distance. Create a table of viewing distances with the required pixel pitch.
Why should we change it?
If pixel pitch must be specified according to viewing distance, then there should be a standard (not a note) that specifies the pixel pitch required for accessibility at different viewing distances.
Heading text
12.11.4 Illumination
Heading number portion
12.11.4
Item id
1770328165145_26
Heading id
s12.11.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
have protective coatings or lenses installed on the display surfaces of electronic and digital signs, whether used indoors or outdoors, to promote durability, protect against impact, minimize the impact of weathering, and ensure clear visibility and perception in varying lighting and environmental conditions;
What should we change it to?
Display surfaces of electronic and digital signs, whether used indoors or outdoors, shall be designed with materials that ensure clear visibility and perception in varying lighting and environmental conditions;
Why should we change it?
The choice to use protective coatings, lenses, etc. are not accessibility requirements. The accessibility requirement is that the sign needs to be maintained in a way that it continues to meet the specified requirements (clear visibility and perception in varying lighting and environmental conditions). Whether that requires protective coatings, etc. is a design decision and should be determined by local environmental conditions. Technologies may develop that do not require protective coatings or lenses in order to provide clear visibility and perception. The standard should not require design components but rather should specify the requirements for creating accessibility (regardless of which design components are used to achieve that goal).
Heading text
12.11.5 Reflectivity and clear visibility
Heading number portion
12.11.5
Item id
1770328308911_102
Heading id
s12.11.6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
avoid black backgrounds when placing LED-driven signage in the direct path of sunlight and instead use lighter backgrounds, to maintain the required ratios,
What should we change it to?
Remove a.
Why should we change it?
How the required contrast ratios are achieved is a design decision. As technology develops and environmental factors change a light background may not be the best method and you are restricting the potential use of new materials and technologies.
Heading text
12.11.6 Colour factors
Heading number portion
12.11.6
Item id
1770328396062_25
Heading id
s12.11.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
a best viewing time of 10 to 15 seconds per screen,
What should we change it to?
Create a table of viewing times per amount of test/length of message.
Why should we change it?
The best viewing time will depend on the amount and complexity of the information conveyed on the screen.
Heading text
12.11.7 Messaging
Heading number portion
12.11.7
Item id
1770328467497_400
Heading id
s12.11.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
grade 8 reading level
What should we change it to?
grade 4 reading level
Why should we change it?
Accessibility best practices recommend a maximum grade 4 reading level to ensure that information is understood by most members of the public.
Heading text
12.11.7 Messaging
Heading number portion
12.11.7
Item id
1770328569054_698
Heading id
s12.11.9
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Note: Providing a timbre and tone that is compatible across age demographics and accounts for the impact of hearing loss is good practice.
What should we change it to?
The timbre and tone required for accessibility across age demographics should be specified as a requirement.
Why should we change it?
Timbre and tone are required for accessibility.
Heading text
12.11.9 Acoustics
Heading number portion
12.11.9
Item id
1770328764329_311
Heading id
s13.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The information displayed shall be based on a study and understanding of users' needs, including their location, language proficiency, and specific route requirements.
What should we change it to?
The information displayed should be based on a study and understanding of users' needs, including their location, language proficiency, and specific route requirements.
Why should we change it?
The statement is too vague to be an absolute requirement (shall). What is "a study"? Asking two people for their opinion? Why should language proficiency determine the information displayed? The information needed for accessibility should be displayed in a way that meets the language proficiency needs of most people.
Heading text
13.2 Information displayed
Heading number portion
13.2
Item id
1770328857033_274
Heading id
s13.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Map design and readability shall: use cartographic design elements to enhance clarity and usability such as title/subtitle, neat lines, legend, and orientation indicators when appropriate;
What should we change it to?
Map design and readability should: use cartographic design elements to enhance clarity and usability such as title/subtitle, neat lines, legend, and orientation indicators when appropriate;
Why should we change it?
Shall denotes an absolute requirement. It is not possible to state that something "shall" be provided and then say "where appropriate" because "shall" indicates it always must be provided.
Heading text
13.3 Design
Heading number portion
13.3
Item id
1770328957583_432
Heading id
s13.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
easily understandable
What should we change it to?
conveyed at a Grade 4 reading level.
Why should we change it?
What is easily understandable is subjective and differs from person to person. A requirement (i.e., shall) needs to provide the enforceable requirement that will provide the required accessibility.
Heading text
13.5 Legend
Heading number portion
13.5
Item id
1770329086184_959
Heading id
s13.6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Maps shall include an index as part of the location plan or guide map
What should we change it to?
Where multiple similar facilities are provided, maps shall include an index as part of the location plan or guide map.
Why should we change it?
If all of the features on a map are illustrated in the legend, an index should not be required. For example, an index is helpful in a map of a shopping mall. It does not seem like an appropriate requirement for a national park map.
Heading text
13.6 Index
Heading number portion
13.6
Item id
1770329202036_638
Heading id
s13.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
typical walking times
What should we change it to?
Remove this text.
Why should we change it?
Typical walking times should not be used as walking speeds vary widely. Convey distances so each user can determine how long it will take them to cover that distance. Stating it is 2 km and a typical walking speed is 4 km per hour sets an expectation that the individual will cover the distance in 30 minutes. Individuals who walk more slowly often find themselves on trails after dark because they were unable to achieve the typical walking speed.
Heading text
13.7 Scale
Heading number portion
13.7
Item id
1770329268141_47
Heading id
s13.9
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
13.9
What should we change it to?
Remove this requirement.
Why should we change it?
f the map is required to meet accessibility requirements 24/7/365 then this is unnecessary.
Heading text
13.9 Commercial elements
Heading number portion
13.9
Item id
1770329384728_871
Heading id
s13.10
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
Location plans
What should we change it to?
Maps
Why should we change it?
Clause 13 addresses Maps (non-tactile). Why these requirements would apply to location plans and how those are different from maps is unclear.
Heading text
13.10 Construction and maintenance
Heading number portion
13.10
Item id
1770329512430_497
Heading id
s13
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Currently there is no perfect solution.
What should we change it to?
Currently there is no perfect solution.
Why should we change it?
This is a critically important statement and is exactly why the requirement for a slip resistant surface is not appropriate at this time.
Heading text
14. Annex A: Slip resistance measurement (informative)
Heading number portion
14.
Submission ID
64729
Submitted by
plongmuir@cheo.on.ca
Submitted on
Thu, 02/05/2026 - 17:13
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64743's submission

CAN-ASC-2.4 – Wayfinding and Signage
Feedback items
Item id
1770496633423_122
Heading id
s11
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
recommendation for 12. Signage section
What should we change it to?
Add visual graphics to support written text
Why should we change it?
Including graphics helps draw clearer connections between the textual description and how it is expected to manifest in the physical design.
Heading text
12. Signage
Heading number portion
12.
Item id
1770497022824_294
Heading id
s12.2.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
12.2.8.e: Clarification needed - Should it be 1 sign to be centre mounted per stall? Are flagged signage allowed? Showing two signs for two parking spaced, on one centre post between the spots?
What should we change it to?
clarify further how the signage should be installed
Why should we change it?
standardizes the approach. currently as written it can be interpreted in several ways
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1770497405996_400
Heading id
s12.2.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
review the use of "Signage Shall" before the sub list. for example: 12.2.8.a - signs intended to be read by pedestrians > iii. warning signs.
What should we change it to?
It is not always possible to have tactile characters and braille for warning signs intended to be read by pedestrians because of existing infrastructure limitations, thus other indicators are required to be present in areas to alert visually or hearing impaired.
Why should we change it?
perhaps it's a combination of multiple elements needed when signing for a situation that requires warning the public
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1770497593606_218
Heading id
s12.7.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
this section would benefit from visual graphics
What should we change it to?
add visual graphics to support the written text
Why should we change it?
Including graphics helps draw clearer connections between the textual description and how it is expected to manifest in the physical design.
Heading text
12.7.2 Tactile signs at doors—location and mounting
Heading number portion
12.7.2
Item id
1770497861907_859
Heading id
s12.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
add clarification for bilingual signage
What should we change it to?
how to display braille when two languages are present. Does braille follow each language or does braille follow at the bottom of sign panel after all languages in the same order as the text? Example: English text tactile letters French text tactile letter English braille French braille
Why should we change it?
adds further clarification to standardize and provide familiarity to visually impaired so they are aware were to reach for when searching for the braille component
Heading text
12.8 Braille
Heading number portion
12.8
Submission ID
64743
Submitted by
anastasia.kundacina@gmail.com
Submitted on
Sat, 02/07/2026 - 16:03
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64779's submission

CAN-ASC-2.4 – Wayfinding and Signage
Feedback items
Item id
1771009627570_659
Heading id
s9.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
adding info to the definition
What should we change it to?
A pictogram (also pictogramme, pictograph, or simply picto[1]) is a graphical symbol that conveys meaning through its visual resemblance to a physical object. Pictograms are used in systems of writing and visual communication. A pictography is a writing system[2] which uses pictograms. Some pictograms, such as hazard pictograms, may be elements of formal languages. A pictograph is a visual representation of data using images or symbols. It is a form of communication that has been used for thousands of years, dating back to ancient civilizations. Pictographs are often used to convey complex information in a simple and easy-to-understand way. On the other hand, a pictogram is a specific type of pictograph that uses a graphic symbol to represent a concept or object. Pictograms are commonly used in signage and wayfinding systems, as they can quickly convey information without the need for words. Pictogram and pictograph are both pictures that represent a word or an idea12. However, there is a difference between the two: • Pictograph is a picture that represents a word or an idea by illustration12. • Pictogram is a specific type of pictograph that uses a graphic symbol to represent a concept or object pictograph is a picture that represents a word or an idea; while pictogram is a picture that represents a word or an idea by illustration. Pictogram and pictograph are especially useful for persons with developmental disabilities
Why should we change it?
this is voluntary comment
Heading text
9.1 Definitions
Heading number portion
9.1
Item id
1771011249727_229
Heading id
s12.9
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
see comment above on 9.1
What should we change it to?
see comment above on 9.1
Why should we change it?
see comment above on 9.1
Heading text
12.9 Pictograms and graphical symbols
Heading number portion
12.9
Submission ID
64779
Submitted by
mturmusani@yahoo.ca
Submitted on
Fri, 02/13/2026 - 14:38
Consent to contact
Yes

Pagination

  • First page first
  • Previous page Prev
  • Page 54
  • Page 55
  • Current page 56
  • Page 57
  • Page 58
  • Next page Next
  • Last page last
Report a problem on this page
Please select all that apply (required)

Share widget

Date modified:
2026-04-04

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • X
  • LinkedIn

Accessibility Standards Canada

  • Login
  • Create an account

About government

Government of Canada

  • All contacts
  • Departments and agencies
  • About government

Themes and topics

  • Jobs
  • Immigration and citizenship
  • Travel and tourism
  • Business
  • Benefits
  • Health
  • Taxes
  • Environment and natural resources
  • National security and defence
  • Culture, history and sport
  • Policing, justice and emergencies
  • Transport and infrastructure
  • Canada and the world
  • Money and finances
  • Science and innovation
  • Indigenous Peoples
  • Veterans and military
  • Youth
  • Manage life events

Brand

  • Social Media
  • Mobile Applications
  • About Canada.ca
  • Terms and conditions
  • Privacy
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Site map
Top of Page
Symbol of the Government of Canada