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