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

Language switcher

  • Françaisfr
Government of Canada / Government of 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 2025
    • Get involved
    • Reports and publications
    • Transparency
    • Consultations
    • Organizational structure
  • Standards and technical guides
    • Standards and technical guides database
    • Standards under public review
    • Technical committees
    • Work program
  • Research and funding
    • Funded research project database
    • Advancing Accessibility Standards Research
  • Centre of Expertise
  • Contact us
  • Login

Mobile Menu

  • Home
    • About us
    • Accessibility Plan 2025
    • Get involved
    • Reports and publications
    • Transparency
    • Consultations
    • Organizational structure
  • Standards and technical guides
    • Standards and technical guides database
    • Standards under public review
    • Technical committees
    • Work program
  • Research and funding
    • Funded research project database
    • Advancing Accessibility Standards Research
  • Centre of Expertise
  • Contact us
  • Login

You are here

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

Search results


Displaying 581 - 590 of 808

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

Individual 64781's submission

CAN-ASC-2.4 – Wayfinding and Signage
Feedback items
Item id
1771015081116_376
Heading id
heading-31
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 recommendations for what designers should do to prevent glare and shadows. Include reduce reflections (i.e., on high-gloss surfaces)
What should we change it to?
i. install window treatments to prevent glare from sunlight and reflections, as necessary j. avoid installation of highly reflective surfaces on floors and walls that will increase glare from light sources.
Why should we change it?
Not only is glare uncomfortable, limiting to vision and disorienting, due to challenges with visual perception, people living with dementia may misinterpret glare, reflections and shadows for objects in the environment. See pages 60-61 of https://static1.squarespace.com/static/65c7e5d8ed8ae44c1709ae60/t/6814f642093bec6f6b33a12f/1746204270510/Age+and+dementia+inclusive+neighbourhoods+050125+spreads+-+compressed.pdf and pages 62-69 of https://alzheimerswa.org.au/information-booklets/#flipbook-df_16485/1/
Heading text
10.1.3.1 Preventing glare and shadow
Heading number portion
10.1.3.1
Item id
1771019164268_791
Heading id
s10.4
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?
Add additional recommendations and background for choosing colour patterns
What should we change it to?
- Patterns can cause difficulty with the processing and interpretation of visual information. - Bold/busy patterns and too many bold colours can also add too much visual stimulation to the environment and be overwhelming to someone who has challenges processing visual information. -Choosing calming colour palettes and low low volume patterns can help to create a calming atmosphere. -Using contrasting colours can make important functional features in the environment stand out (e.g., a white light switch on a contrasting wall, a dark toilet seat on a white toilet fixture, which contrasts with the wall and floor) -strong contrast in flooring (e.g., when there is a change from one flooring type to another) can be perceived as a step or a hole by someone with visual perception challenges. Choose one colour/tone for all flooring types and use throughout the same level of your space. -Avoid flooring with strong contrast and visual patterns, as it may be perceived as objects on the floor, an uneven/moving surface or a change in level.
Why should we change it?
High/competing colour contrast and bold patterns can make an environment more confusing and disoriented to people living with dementia. Pages 54-61:https://alzheimerswa.org.au/information-booklets/#flipbook-df_16485/1/
Heading text
10.4 Colour patterns
Heading number portion
10.4
Item id
1772575403098_289
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?
Add to the "Effective wayfinding enables individuals to:"
What should we change it to?
5. Remember their purpose, and provide them cues as to where to go, or what action is required next - guiding them one step at a time.
Why should we change it?
People living with dementia often experience changes in short‑term memory, spatial orientation, visual perception, and wayfinding. Because of this, they may lose track of: Where they are going Why they are going there What they are supposed to do next Clear, well-designed environmental cues can reduce this cognitive load. They serve as external memory supports, anchoring the person, reminding them of their purpose, and guiding them one step at a time.
Heading text
11.1 General
Heading number portion
11.1
Item id
1772576364575_507
Heading id
s11.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
re: TWSIs - it would be helpful to have more information in Tactile direction indicators, including a warning that they may propose a tripping/falling hazard for people with mobility challenges or people using mobility devices (e.g., canes, walkers, wheelchairs).
What should we change it to?
Include guidelines on size of raised edges, appropriate contrast levels, flush installation, slope of bevelled edges and spacing to reduce falling/tripping hazard.
Why should we change it?
I don't think this information in universally available re: use and selection of TWSIs, but it should be. Check out: https://accesstile.com/choosing-the-right-tactile-warning-tiles/#:~:text=For%20easy%20navigation%2C%20the%20ADA,in%20the%20direction%20of%20travel. and https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/sidewalk-tours-wayfinding/accessible-streets/tactile-walking-surface-indicators/
Heading text
11.1 General
Heading number portion
11.1
Item id
1772577762125_94
Heading id
s11.2
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?
The opening paragraph of section 11.2 re: decorative objects.
What should we change it to?
It should be recognized that trees, planters and other objects (e.g., public art installations) are not simply decorative - they have an important function in helping to create a distinctive and familiar environment for people who have challenges with orientation and wayfinding, and they can act as a steet-level buffer to sound and visual stimulation for people with sensory processing difficulties.
Why should we change it?
Designers and planners should ensure that any street-level assets such as landscaping or public art are not placed along paths of travel - but they should not remove them altogether, as they do play an important part of wayfinding for some people. Check out:https://static1.squarespace.com/static/65c7e5d8ed8ae44c1709ae60/t/6814f642093bec6f6b33a12f/1746204270510/Age+and+dementia+inclusive+neighbourhoods+050125+spreads+-+compressed.pdf
Heading text
11.2 Obstacles
Heading number portion
11.2
Item id
1772578141230_264
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 a point to "walking surfaces of interior and exterior paths of travel in the built environment shall:"
What should we change it to?
Add: e. walking surfaces should contrast with walls of buildings, and any objects on the ground to improve depth perception within the environment and increase visibility of obstacles (e.g. furniture, planters, etc.).
Why should we change it?
Colour contrast between the floor and any vertical elements (e.g., walls, furniture, bassicades, etc.) can help people with perceptual difficulties to gauge the distance and make these objects more noticable.
Heading text
11.3 Walking surfaces of interior and exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1772580201864_828
Heading id
heading-55
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?
Regarding 11.4.2.3, recommendation c: should make the case more clearly that 90 degree angle to the travel direction clearly indicates one direction of travel across an intersection or along a pathway.
What should we change it to?
Attention indicator surfaces should not cover the entire curb surface, so that the direction of travel is clear to the person needing it.
Why should we change it?
It's not currently clear that attention indicator surfaces not only indicate a hazard/obstacle, but they also indicate to the user which direction they need to travel in as they leave the indicator surface.
Heading text
11.4.2.3 Placement
Heading number portion
11.4.2.3
Item id
1772580565236_578
Heading id
heading-57
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 to this sentence: "Configuration of attention indicators is important to ensure their effectiveness when in use."
What should we change it to?
Add to the end of the sentence "...to ensure their effectiveness when in use and to reduce the potential for these indicators to become tripping/falling hazards for people with mobility challenges."
Why should we change it?
Many people with mobility challenges or using a mobility device (cane, walker. wheelchair) can find high-profile or improperly installed attention indicators a safety hazard.
Heading text
11.4.2.5 Configuration
Heading number portion
11.4.2.5
Item id
1772581320900_40
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?
Add more detail on what it means to provide "consise, direct and plain" language.
What should we change it to?
a. be concise and written using direct and plain language. It can be helpful to think of 2-3 key words that convey the message. (e.g., "Do not enter", etc.)
Why should we change it?
Being more explicit about what it means to use concise, direct and plain language for accessibility will help with uptake.
Heading text
12.3 Quality of information
Heading number portion
12.3
Submission ID
64781
Submitted by
amarkey@alzheimerbc.org
Submitted on
Tue, 03/03/2026 - 18:51
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64791's submission

CAN-ASC-2.4 – Wayfinding and Signage
Feedback items
Item id
1771251928297_677
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?
add a note about convex mirrors
What should we change it to?
Note 4: Along the interior path of travel where the line of sight is impeded, accessible paths of travel should include convex mirrors. They may be installed in the corners of ceilings at high-use areas or at unobstructed passing areas.
Why should we change it?
for safety purposes. This comment about what we should change comes from a wheelchair user at the National Arts Centre. The proposed note is loosely based on the Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines 2.1.1 Req't #7 Where provided at interior accessible paths of travel, additional features should include: (b) Convex mirrors that are located: (i) In the corners of ceilings at high-use areas; (ii) At unobstructed passing areas; (iii) At intersections along the interior path of travel where the line of sight is impeded
Heading text
11.1 General
Heading number portion
11.1
Submission ID
64791
Submitted by
QRedekop
Submitted on
Mon, 02/16/2026 - 09:25
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64801's submission

CAN-ASC-2.4 – Wayfinding and Signage
Feedback items
Item id
1771453341938_139
Heading id
heading-55
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Clause 11.4.2.3.b and d.
What should we change it to?
b. be positioned 300 mm back from the road or parking lot side of the curb, when used to indicate a curb ramp or depressed curb at a pedestrian crossing; d. be positioned 300 mm back from the road or parking lot side of the curb, when used to indicate at-grade curb faced walkways.
Why should we change it?
Typical street curbing (i.e., a barrier curb, or dropped curb) is constructed out of 150 to 200 mm wide concrete. There is a lack of clarity in the industry if the tactiles should placed 300 mm back from the road side of the street curb or the back side of the street curb. Note: I changed the word "sidewalk" to "walkway", to address curb-faced pedestrian infrastructure conditions in parking lots in addition to curb-faced sidewalks that run along roads and drive-aisles.
Heading text
11.4.2.3 Placement
Heading number portion
11.4.2.3
Item id
1771453449979_237
Heading id
s11.3.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
11.3.1.a.ii.
What should we change it to?
ii. have a continuous clear visual and tactile detectable delineation between pedestrian and cycling zones, such as a 300 mm wide grass section for easy detection, or be on different levels such as the street and the sidewalk;
Why should we change it?
Added the word "wide" after 300 mm, for clarity.
Heading text
11.3.1 Additional specifications for exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3.1
Item id
1771454165203_70
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.i.1.
What should we change it to?
12.2.8.e.i.1. is at least 300 mm wide by 450 mm high, and where required, includes a 300 mm wide by 150 mm high sign below the standard sign to identify the wider accessible parking space as "van accessible" 12.2.8.e.ii.3 [add information to explain that the sign shall be placed in a manner that is centred on the accessible parking space]
Why should we change it?
The wider accessible parking spaces should have an additional sign tag that states "van accessible", similar to requirements in the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation under the AODA in Ontario. The sign location shall be centred on the accessible parking space to ensure people clearly understand which space is the accessible space.
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1771454690639_847
Heading id
s12.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
12.4.n.
What should we change it to?
ii. use Arabic numerals, not Roman numerals. iii. have a width-to-height ratio between 3:5 and 1:1 to ensure characters do not appear too narrow or too wide. iv. have a stroke width-to-height ratio between 1:5 and 1:10 to ensure characters do not appear too thin or too thick. viii. do not use italics font and avoid oblique, script, highly decorative or other unusual forms of characters Note 3: [add text to explain character heights should also be based on mounting height, in addition to viewing distance.] Also add: 1. Use horizontal text orientation, not vertical or diagonal orientations. 2. Avoid long lines of type.
Why should we change it?
Many buildings owners, facilities managers and signage vendors don't understand why these requirements are important. Providing the 'why' can help with compliance. ii. added text for clarity. iii. added text for clarity. iv. added text for clarity. viii. added text for clarity. Other: vertical and diagonal text orientations and long lines of type in signage create wayfinding barriers.
Heading text
12.4 Configuration
Heading number portion
12.4
Item id
1771454911374_351
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?
12.6.1.c.
What should we change it to?
c. be installed on the latch side of the door for wall-mounted room identification signs, located 150 mm from the leading vertical edge of the door frame. Where there is no wall space on the latch side of the door, including at the double leaf doors, be placed on the nearest adjacent wall. [similar to content in 12.7.2] Also consider adding: 1. provide minimum 75 mm of clear space around the sign; [similar to content in 12.7.2] 2. do not mount on swinging doors; and 3. where tactile messaging is included, be located to facilitate a clear floor space of 900 mm wide x 1500 mm long for a front approach, or 900 mm wide x 2200 mm long for a side approach.
Why should we change it?
Detail is needed to guide owners, facility managers and signage vendors to help ensure signage is consistently placed a specified distance from door frames for people who use sense of touch to read signs.
Heading text
12.6.1 Location of signs
Heading number portion
12.6.1
Item id
1771455055332_581
Heading id
s12.6.3
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 signage requirements for the room side of stairwells.]
What should we change it to?
[Add a requirement for stairwell signage on the room side of stairwells, complete with the requirement to have a pictogram of a stair] [Consider if similar requirement is needed for escalators]
Why should we change it?
Stairs are critical emergency exit infrastructure and it should be very clear for building occupants which doors lead to stairs, in addition to presence of emergency exit signs.
Heading text
12.6.3 Stairs
Heading number portion
12.6.3
Item id
1771455131302_384
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?
d. require a clear area of 820 mm x 1390 mm in front of the sign when it is wall mounted;
What should we change it to?
d. require a clear area of 900 mm wide x 1500 mm long for a front approach, or 900 mm wide x 2200 mm long for a side approach
Why should we change it?
1. More space is needed. 2. Addresses space needs for a forward approach and an side approach.
Heading text
12.7.3 Tactile signs at eye-level
Heading number portion
12.7.3
Item id
1771455255109_40
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?
i. 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?
[not sure if this is the right location in the standard, but consider adding text that explains "raised pictograms shall have a minimum field height of 150 mm"]
Why should we change it?
Clarity on pictogram field size
Heading text
12.7.4 Tactile characters
Heading number portion
12.7.4
Item id
1771455520209_524
Heading id
s12.8.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
a. have dots that are domed and provide i. a dot base diameter from 1.5 mm to 1.6 mm
What should we change it to?
a. have dots that are domed or rounded shape, not pointy or flat, and provide Also consider adding: 1. have grade 1 Braille placed directly below the corresponding raised text and pictograms. Use grade 2 Braille for messaging with 10 words or more.
Why should we change it?
Building owners, facility managers and wayfinding signage vendors may benefit from the clarity. Detail is needed on if Braille should be grade 1 or 2. Consultation with the vision loss community is recommended to determine best practice.
Heading text
12.8.1 Braille dots
Heading number portion
12.8.1
Submission ID
64801
Submitted by
markjbuffone@gmail.com
Submitted on
Wed, 02/18/2026 - 18:00
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64808's submission

CAN-ASC-2.4 – Wayfinding and Signage
Feedback items
Item id
1771531129000_205
Heading id
s12.11.4
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?
Note 2 should be moved
What should we change it to?
Move the sentence to terms of reference
Why should we change it?
The note is explaining what LED is not illumination design
Heading text
12.11.4 Illumination
Heading number portion
12.11.4
Item id
1771535312735_662
Heading id
s12.11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
In the first sentence should be rewritten
What should we change it to?
and repair are *all* crucial for accessibility.
Why should we change it?
list should be all inclusive
Heading text
12.11.3 Design and installation
Heading number portion
12.11.3
Item id
1771536722860_822
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?
B should not be left to addition study that why people read are standard to get answers
What should we change it to?
if you don't have a exact time to leave a message up give a range at least they have some place to start from. refining can happen in the maintenance stages of the document
Why should we change it?
people are coming here for answer not be told to do more studies
Heading text
12.11.1 General
Heading number portion
12.11.1
Item id
1771537339050_326
Heading id
s12.10.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Add a d to the list
What should we change it to?
tactile and braille should be include on all button of the elevators esp. the phone
Why should we change it?
including audible and braille give more options
Heading text
12.10.5 Elevators
Heading number portion
12.10.5
Item id
1771539124150_785
Heading id
s12.9
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
Move the 2 notes and b
What should we change it to?
move that to the definition block of the standard
Why should we change it?
that were it fits
Heading text
12.9 Pictograms and graphical symbols
Heading number portion
12.9
Item id
1771962681125_520
Heading id
s13.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
such as the north arrow and you are here
What should we change it to?
this two point should be broken up into two points
Why should we change it?
to make it clearer to understand
Heading text
13.4 Orientation
Heading number portion
13.4
Item id
1771963277185_120
Heading id
s13.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
The tittle Orientation
What should we change it to?
change the tittle to Map Orientation
Why should we change it?
to be clearer
Heading text
13.4 Orientation
Heading number portion
13.4
Item id
1771964208987_964
Heading id
s12.9
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
the term "field" is used in a confusing manner and quite suddenly in the middle of the section
What should we change it to?
propose changing the word to something else more direct like background or adding a diagram which visually describes the different descriptions used in d., and e..
Why should we change it?
at minimum the use of the word field without being described in the terms of reference is jarring and possibly confusing
Heading text
12.9 Pictograms and graphical symbols
Heading number portion
12.9
Item id
1771966018485_39
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?
Door should be swing inward
What should we change it to?
remove this sentence
Why should we change it?
in some provinces this would be violating against building code and if you have a small room it become a barrier
Heading text
12.6.1 Location of signs
Heading number portion
12.6.1
Item id
1771966587095_49
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?
Change the word shall
What should we change it to?
change the word to where possible
Why should we change it?
there are to many variable's in that list to use the word shall
Heading text
12.11.3 Design and installation
Heading number portion
12.11.3
Item id
1771967486923_540
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 paint the international sign on a paved parking space
What should we change it to?
The paint must have anti skid texture added in the paint
Why should we change it?
if you don't add it into the requirements it can cause a slipping hazard when it id raining and their has be legal case over slip and falls
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1771968076640_969
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?
remove the word surface type, firmness, and stability
What should we change it to?
remove the point
Why should we change it?
these word to describe a trial can change over time or during a weather event
Heading text
12.2.9 Signs for outdoor spaces
Heading number portion
12.2.9
Item id
1771968748617_78
Heading id
s12.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
remove the word established need this case a barrier and this is the point to the standard
What should we change it to?
add more examples and remove the wording,.
Why should we change it?
we need to remove barriers not add them who would determine the need how would you measure it
Heading text
12.3 Quality of information
Heading number portion
12.3
Item id
1771969982106_473
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?
include all the signs type in your list so that braille is required
What should we change it to?
A complete list under a
Why should we change it?
so that people get the impression that only certain sign require braille
Heading text
12.2.8 Requirements for different types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2.8
Item id
1771970386656_174
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?
Signs for outdoor spaces tittle
What should we change it to?
change it to trail head sign
Why should we change it?
12.2.2.9 is only addressing trail head sigs,
Heading text
12.2.9 Signs for outdoor spaces
Heading number portion
12.2.9
Item id
1771971259788_408
Heading id
s12.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
12.3 12.3 12.5 should be moved
What should we change it to?
Move to under 12.1
Why should we change it?
it would flow and tell you what the requirement of a sign before laying out types of signs
Heading text
12.2 Types of signage
Heading number portion
12.2
Item id
1772048156413_282
Heading id
heading-72
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Add a new sub section to this clause TSWI
What should we change it to?
The new section should be labeled as "SOP" (Standard Operational Procedures). Especially with TWSI and indicator strips can lose colour, can be damaged, because of normal day to day use especially in outdoor spaces. I.e. snow-plowing, a plow hitting the TWSIs and removing it from its' location which. Indicating a procedure for clearing and maintaining the TWSIs especially during and after weather events in outdoor settings.
Why should we change it?
If the TWSIs are damaged and not mandated to be maintained and have defects reported it can cause a public safety issue for people depending on them.
Heading text
11.4.3.3.6 Width of pattern
Heading number portion
11.4.3.3.6
Item id
1772048839600_933
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 include that a bollard should have a plug replacement so when the bollards are remove for varying reason the plug is installed making sure is flush too the finish grade.
What should we change it to?
that a cover or plug should be concealed in the construction or within the structure so that the grade remains flat when bollards are removed or replaced
Why should we change it?
so when bollards are removed or replaced they do not become a tripping hazard
Heading text
11.2.2 Bollards in paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.2
Item id
1772050040694_689
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?
it should reference the outdoor spaces instead
What should we change it to?
CSA/ASC B651 for clause details is appropriate for indoor standards but for outdoor standard it should reference the outdoor spaces instead - the correct clause needs to be researched and added
Why should we change it?
indoor spaces standard should not be referenced in this document unless a structure is involved
Heading text
11.2.2 Bollards in paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.2
Item id
1772051414757_902
Heading id
heading-29
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Add a note to in hance the basic lighting section for outdoor space
What should we change it to?
lighting requirement should be in place a half a hour before sun set to a half hour after sunrise as well, when lights cannot be manually turned on, a photosensitive switch should be installed especially in an outdoor setting. for awnings this sensor should be able to see the sun even in a forested area
Why should we change it?
it change with the season it provides guidance and it has a energy and cost saving
Heading text
10.1.2.1 Basic lighting considerations
Heading number portion
10.1.2.1
Item id
1772052307933_348
Heading id
heading-29
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
ADD another note that a walkway though a park should not be lit.
What should we change it to?
Studies have proven that lighting along park walkways cause safety concerns for user walking from a well lit area to dark area at night
Why should we change it?
So lighting is not installed during park development
Heading text
10.1.2.1 Basic lighting considerations
Heading number portion
10.1.2.1
Submission ID
64808
Submitted by
peterstapper@yahoo.com
Submitted on
Wed, 02/25/2026 - 16:04
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64848's submission

CAN-ASC-2.4 – Wayfinding and Signage
Feedback items
Item id
1772135192513_943
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?
larity of Audience The section speaks broadly to: • Federal public sector • Private sector • NGOs • Indigenous communities • Society at large Concern It does not clearly distinguish between federally regulated entities and other jurisdictions. Rural municipalities may assume mandatory application when it is not yet regulatory. Recommendation Add a clear statement early in the section outlining: • Who the standard applies to immediately • Who may adopt voluntarily • How provincial or municipal governments fit within the framework Equity-Based vs Minimum Requirements The section states that standards are designed to achieve “the highest levels of accessibility” rather than minimum technical requirements. Concern While this is commendable, it creates uncertainty for municipalities and small entities that typically design to minimum code compliance. There is no explanation of how entities should balance aspirational standards with financial constraints.
What should we change it to?
Recommendation Clarify: • Whether these standards are intended to exceed current building codes • How jurisdictions should reconcile conflicts between this standard and existing provincial codes
Why should we change it?
For municipalities and rural entities, the strong equity framing can create uncertainty because: • It emphasizes highest accessibility levels rather than minimum compliance • It does not yet explain how cost, scalability, or phased implementation are addressed • It does not clarify regulatory status for non-federal bodies
Heading text
1. Accessibility Standards Canada: About us
Heading number portion
1.
Item id
1772135337838_50
Heading id
s5
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?
Clarity of Purpose Strength The Introduction clearly states that everyone has the right to navigate indoor and outdoor environments effectively, safely, and efficiently. It recognizes that signage is often inaccessible and that consultation with persons with disabilities is essential.
What should we change it to?
The Introduction does not clearly differentiate between: • New construction • Major renovations • Existing buildings
Why should we change it?
Because the Introduction shapes how the entire standard is understood, applied, and funded across different communities.
Heading text
6. Introduction
Heading number portion
6.
Item id
1772135458345_629
Heading id
s6.2
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?
Clarify in the Guiding Principles how affordability and scalability are evaluated in practice, particularly for rural and small municipalities with limited technical and financial capacity.
What should we change it to?
Specify how affordability and scalability will be applied in real-world implementation, especially for smaller and rural communities.
Why should we change it?
Because without explaining how affordability and scalability are applied, smaller and rural communities may struggle to interpret and implement the principles consistently.
Heading text
6.2 Guiding principles
Heading number portion
6.2
Item id
1772135565296_544
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?
Clarify in the Scope section how the standard applies to new construction versus existing facilities and include scalable compliance pathways for small and rural environments to reduce retrofit uncertainty.
What should we change it to?
Because without clear distinctions and scalable pathways, smaller and rural communities may face uncertainty, disproportionate retrofit costs, and inconsistent application of the standard.
Why should we change it?
Because unclear scope increases legal, financial, and operational risk for smaller jurisdictions trying to determine what is mandatory versus aspirational.
Heading text
7. Scope
Heading number portion
7.
Item id
1772135648586_510
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?
Clarify within the Inclusions section which elements are mandatory minimum requirements versus recommended best practices to reduce implementation ambiguity.
What should we change it to?
Clearly distinguish in the Inclusions section between mandatory “shall” requirements and advisory “should” best practices to improve implementation clarity.
Why should we change it?
Because without a clear distinction, municipalities may over-interpret advisory guidance as mandatory, increasing cost, liability risk, and implementation confusion.
Heading text
7.2 Inclusions
Heading number portion
7.2
Item id
1772135753249_85
Heading id
s7.3
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?
Revise the Exclusions section to clearly state whether excluded topics such as tactile maps and acoustics will be addressed in future mandatory standards, are covered under separate standards, or remain permanently outside scope, and explain how practitioners should manage these gaps in the interim.
What should we change it to?
Expand the Exclusions section to clearly explain whether excluded topics such as tactile maps, acoustics, and assistive listening systems will be addressed in future standards, are governed by existing standards, or are intentionally outside the scope, and provide practical interim guidance so practitioners understand how to manage these elements during planning and procurement.
Why should we change it?
Because when excluded items are not clearly addressed, municipalities and designers are left uncertain about whether those elements are deferred, optional, regulated elsewhere, or unintentionally omitted, which increases the risk of inconsistent application, procurement delays, redesign costs, and potential accessibility gaps or liability exposure.
Heading text
7.3 Exclusions
Heading number portion
7.3
Item id
1772135843543_358
Heading id
s9
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 practical implementation guidance in the General Requirements for Lighting and Contrast that explains acceptable verification methods, realistic retrofit expectations, and scalable application for smaller and existing facilities.
What should we change it to?
Clarify in the General Requirements for Lighting and Contrast how compliance is to be measured in practice, provide simplified field verification methods, and distinguish expectations for new construction versus existing facilities to reduce implementation and retrofit uncertainty.
Why should we change it?
Because the General Requirements for Lighting and Contrast introduce highly technical thresholds and measurement methods that may exceed the practical capacity of smaller and rural municipalities, and without clearer implementation guidance they create uncertainty around compliance verification, retrofit obligations, lifecycle maintenance costs, and alignment with existing provincial building codes.
Heading text
10. General requirements for lighting and contrast
Heading number portion
10.
Item id
1772135928661_524
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?
Clarify the lighting requirements to include practical guidance on measurement methods, retrofit expectations, phased compliance, and scalable application for smaller or rural facilities, while aligning thresholds with existing building codes to reduce cost, technical burden, and compliance uncertainty.
What should we change it to?
Revise the lighting section to clearly outline acceptable measurement methods, define how requirements apply to new construction versus existing facilities, allow phased or risk-based compliance for retrofits, align thresholds with existing building codes where possible, and provide scalable options that reflect the financial and technical capacity of smaller and rural municipalities.
Why should we change it?
Because without clear measurement methods, phased retrofit guidance, and scalable application aligned with existing codes, smaller and rural municipalities may face disproportionate capital costs, technical verification challenges, inconsistent enforcement interpretations, and increased legal and operational risk when attempting to implement the lighting requirements.
Heading text
10.1 Lighting
Heading number portion
10.1
Item id
1772136025489_917
Heading id
s10.1.1
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?
Revise the Application subsection to clearly define how lighting requirements apply across different building types, distinguish between new construction and existing facilities, clarify expectations for outdoor versus indoor environments, and provide proportional compliance options for low-traffic, small, or rural settings.
What should we change it to?
Revise the Application subsection to specify to what types of facilities, projects, and environments the lighting requirements apply, including distinctions between federally regulated buildings, new construction, major renovations, existing facilities, and low-complexity or rural settings.
Why should we change it?
Because without clear and proportional application guidance, municipalities may misinterpret uniform lighting thresholds as universally mandatory, leading to unnecessary retrofits, budget strain, inconsistent enforcement, and avoidable delays in delivering practical accessibility improvements. Failsafe check: Passed
Heading text
10.1.1 Application
Heading number portion
10.1.1
Submission ID
64848
Submitted by
dennis.childs@simcoe.ca
Submitted on
Thu, 02/26/2026 - 15:01
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64887's submission

CAN-ASC-2.4 – Wayfinding and Signage
Feedback items
Item id
1772815613071_183
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?
The Braille definition specifies "letters and numbers", but Braille also have punctuation.
What should we change it to?
Change "letters and numbers" to "characters" to be more all-encompassing.
Why should we change it?
Clarity.
Heading text
9.1 Definitions
Heading number portion
9.1
Item id
1772815654258_299
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?
Tactile maps are very useful tools that entities will install. Are there plans to integrate them within this standard in the future, once more research has been done?
What should we change it to?
No change required in document, simply a suggestion.
Why should we change it?
To provide guidance on useful accessibility elements.
Heading text
7.1 General
Heading number portion
7.1
Item id
1772815729633_249
Heading id
s9.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
Add the acronym for “Le code braille français uniformisé pour la transcription des textes imprimés” (CBFU).
What should we change it to?
“Le code braille français uniformisé pour la transcription des textes imprimés” (CBFU)
Why should we change it?
Same information provided in French and English.
Heading text
9.1 Definitions
Heading number portion
9.1
Item id
1772815809036_477
Heading id
s9.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
In the definition for the Michelson contrast, add the formula to explain how to calculate this.
What should we change it to?
See CSA B651-23 for information to add, add all information required so that a reader can know how to calculate the Michelson contrast.
Why should we change it?
Clarity.
Heading text
9.1 Definitions
Heading number portion
9.1
Item id
1772815883358_85
Heading id
s9.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The "Note" at the end of the definition is not sufficient for many users who are not familiar with luminance contrast. The statement should be spelled out mathematically, as a formula.
What should we change it to?
Add a mathematical formula, that is clear and properly formatted.
Why should we change it?
Clarity.
Heading text
9.1 Definitions
Heading number portion
9.1
Item id
1772815964843_962
Heading id
s9.2
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?
In the definition in section 9.1 for "lux" the abbreviation "SI" is used. Please define here.
What should we change it to?
Add abbreviation definition for 'SI".
Why should we change it?
For complete information.
Heading text
9.2 Abbreviations
Heading number portion
9.2
Item id
1772816063960_741
Heading id
heading-29
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?
There should be more consideration for lighting integrated in handrail. It was mentioned that lighting integrated within handrails can be used. However, based on experience, if this type of lighting is not supplemented it does not illuminate well the section of the staircase that is farther from the handrails. Additionally, because the lighting needs to be integrated within the handrail’s profile, it impedes on the accessibility requirements of the profile (to be circular or elliptical).
What should we change it to?
Add information about how lighting is to be added in a handrail, what is acceptable and what is not. When it should be added and when it should not be.
Why should we change it?
To avoid inadequate illumination on key exterior and interior features such as stairs.
Heading text
10.1.2.1 Basic lighting considerations
Heading number portion
10.1.2.1
Item id
1772816112905_89
Heading id
s10.1.3
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?
How is the "Unified Glare Rating" calculated? Please add in definition or add note here.
What should we change it to?
Add definition and calculation details.
Why should we change it?
Clarity and ensuring complete information.
Heading text
10.1.3 Glare and shadow
Heading number portion
10.1.3
Item id
1772816170444_194
Heading id
s10.2.1
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?
Comment on Table 1: There should be detailed explanation on how to calculate all the difference contrast and luminance.
What should we change it to?
Add detailed explanation on calculations.
Why should we change it?
Clarity and complete information.
Heading text
10.2.1 General requirements
Heading number portion
10.2.1
Item id
1772816249177_897
Heading id
s10.2.2
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?
There should be better definition of what is considered a “glossy material” (in a)). Without specificity, people will often choose not to follow guidelines because they will think it does not apply to them.
What should we change it to?
Add more applicability and specificity information.
Why should we change it?
To ensure proper compliance.
Heading text
10.2.2 Luminance contrast of glossy materials
Heading number portion
10.2.2
Item id
1772816314575_603
Heading id
s10.3
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?
On Note 1 and Note 2: These two notes are useful but also a bit unclear to someone that is not very familiar with colour theory. I recommend establishing clear recommendations, instead of “such as” statements and defining what brightness and intensity means (quantitively). For example “Note 2: The following colour pairings should be avoided - red with green, blue with yellow […] when their shades have comparable brightness or intensity (defined and calculated as…).” Also, since it is about the same colour combinations, Note 4 should be combined with Note 2.
What should we change it to?
Change to be clearer, stating clearly which colour should not be combined or paired.
Why should we change it?
Clarity and ensuring maximum accessibility.
Heading text
10.3 Colour choice
Heading number portion
10.3
Item id
1772816355990_875
Heading id
s10.4
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?
Combine statement d) with statement c) above since they are both about the contrast in the patterns.
What should we change it to?
Combine both statements d) and c).
Why should we change it?
Avoid duplicate information.
Heading text
10.4 Colour patterns
Heading number portion
10.4
Item id
1772821786441_295
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?
On point a): It would be useful to add the wording of the specific clause in the CSA/ASC B651:23 that this applies to. If the decision is to not include the clause in case it changes with future CSA/ASC B651 versions (or publication of ASC 2.3) then replace with “most up-to-date version of CSA/ASC B651”. Applies to all locations where there is reference to CSA/ASC B651:23 without inclusion of a specific clause.
What should we change it to?
CSA B65-23 clause that is referenced.
Why should we change it?
To ensure that information does not get lost in the future.
Heading text
11.2.1 Obstacles on paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.1
Item id
1772821847726_626
Heading id
s11.2.2
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?
Will reference figures be added in the standard later in its development? It would be helpful for visualization.
What should we change it to?
Add reference figures (visuals).
Why should we change it?
For ease of understanding and comprehension.
Heading text
11.2.2 Bollards in paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.2
Item id
1772822043475_642
Heading id
s11.3.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
Should i) and ii) be combined as they both speak to the physical separation of pedestrian and cycling zones?
What should we change it to?
Combine i) and ii).
Why should we change it?
Clarity and avoiding duplication.
Heading text
11.3.1 Additional specifications for exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3.1
Item id
1772822146889_485
Heading id
heading-53
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
In point b) add "and consistent", to make it clear that consistency for TWSIs is very important.
What should we change it to?
b) be standard and consistent within a building, facility, site or complex of buildings..
Why should we change it?
Clarity.
Heading text
11.4.2.1 General
Heading number portion
11.4.2.1
Item id
1772822186523_558
Heading id
heading-54
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?
About the location on ramps: We have heard from many wheeled mobility device users that TAIs at the top and bottom of ramps are a real barrier for their maneuvering the ramp. They have to approach a ramp (from the top or bottom) carefully and the TAIs impede on their movement and navigation. Recommend removing the requirement for ramps or discussing in detail with several wheeled mobility device users to ensure that it can be done in a way that does not prevent them from using ramps (which are key mobility elements for them).
What should we change it to?
Consider removing or clarifying the need of TAIs at the top of ramps.
Why should we change it?
Avoid adding barriers for some users.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1772822240112_858
Heading id
heading-54
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?
The Note "When installed at the bottom of a ramp..." gives the impression that TAIs are installed at the bottom of ramps in general. Is the intention of the note to say: When installed in proximity to the bottom of a ramp?
What should we change it to?
Revise note to make intention clearer.
Why should we change it?
Clarity.
Heading text
11.4.2.2 Location
Heading number portion
11.4.2.2
Item id
1772822626322_701
Heading id
heading-56
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?
On Note 3: What does "high" mean? Without proper definition, you can't ensure proper compliance.
What should we change it to?
Define what "high" means.
Why should we change it?
Consistency, adherence.
Heading text
11.4.2.4 Luminance contrast
Heading number portion
11.4.2.4
Item id
1772822942381_500
Heading id
heading-58
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?
Does point b) relate to the the entire plate? This should be specified since “attention indicators design shall:" makes the reader think it says the indicators should be level with the surrounding surface.
What should we change it to?
Revise to clarify that it is the entire plate that is meant.
Why should we change it?
Clarity and proper compliance.
Heading text
11.4.2.5.1 Arrangements of a single plate
Heading number portion
11.4.2.5.1
Item id
1772823088115_265
Heading id
heading-64
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?
If this is a requirement, “large” and “open” (in opening sentence) should be more clearly defined to ensure that readers know if it applies to the spaces they are designing or not.
What should we change it to?
Add specificity to the applicability statement... How large? How open?
Why should we change it?
Clarity, ensuring that TDIs are actually installed when they need to be.
Heading text
11.4.3.1 General
Heading number portion
11.4.3.1
Item id
1772823269676_782
Heading id
heading-65
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?
The note here is very confusing. TAIs are not necessarily yellow, then why would TDIs not being yellow differentiate them from TAIs?
What should we change it to?
Remove not or add detail for clarity.
Why should we change it?
Clarity, avoid confusion.
Heading text
11.4.3.2 Luminance contrast
Heading number portion
11.4.3.2
Item id
1772823336230_625
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?
Statement c) is a bit vague, what consists of an “established need”? Recommend clarifying or adding to the notes instead.
What should we change it to?
Remove, move to the notes or add details on what an "established need" is.
Why should we change it?
Clarity.
Heading text
12.3 Quality of information
Heading number portion
12.3
Item id
1772823485166_414
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?
In Note 1 "both languages should be presented equally in all respects, including size, font, colour, prominence, and respect for conventions and grammar" conflicts with laws in the Province of Quebec where French needs to be present first and larger than English on signs.
What should we change it to?
Consider engaging with officials from the Province of Quebec to ensure that this note does not conflict with their laws (especially for federally owned buildings applying this standard).
Why should we change it?
Consistency, applicability.
Heading text
12.3 Quality of information
Heading number portion
12.3
Item id
1773062185752_19
Heading id
s12.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
Point c) seems to be a duplicate recommendation from point a).
What should we change it to?
Combine requirements.
Why should we change it?
Avoiding duplication, simplify document.
Heading text
12.4 Configuration
Heading number portion
12.4
Item id
1773062232078_962
Heading id
s12.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
What is the difference between point d) and point e)?
What should we change it to?
Consider combining point d) and e).
Why should we change it?
Avoid confusion and duplication.
Heading text
12.4 Configuration
Heading number portion
12.4
Item id
1773062293951_876
Heading id
s12.4
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?
Point m) requires specific luminance colour contrast, please make sure to say based on which formula/calculation.
What should we change it to?
Specify contrast calculation methodology applicable.
Why should we change it?
Clarity.
Heading text
12.4 Configuration
Heading number portion
12.4
Item id
1773062374458_765
Heading id
s12.4
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?
On point n) v): on character height. Based on experience designing interior signage, this table (table 7 from CSA B651-23) can lead to confusion. Particularly, it is unclear what is the minimum character height size. I tend to believe it is the 25 mm prescribed for a minimal viewing distance of 750 mm, but others believe that if you assume a closer viewing distance the character height can be smaller. Giving the impact that character heights have on signage design, please be very clear in your specifications for these heights so that signage is designed accessibly and accordingly.
What should we change it to?
Instead of referring to the CSA B651-23 table 7, describe specific minimum character heights directly in standard.
Why should we change it?
Clarity, ensuring proper compliance.
Heading text
12.4 Configuration
Heading number portion
12.4
Item id
1773062439535_799
Heading id
s12.6.1
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?
Point a) Note 3. and point f) say the same thing.
What should we change it to?
Remove Note 3 and keep point f).
Why should we change it?
Avoid confusion. For clarity.
Heading text
12.6.1 Location of signs
Heading number portion
12.6.1
Item id
1773062483318_78
Heading id
s12.6.3
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?
Why are these notes and not requirements? They are requirements in the draft ASC 2.2, this standard should consistently apply this as well, given how important stair identification is for emergency egress.
What should we change it to?
Have requirements instead of Notes.
Why should we change it?
Ensure proper compliance.
Heading text
12.6.3 Stairs
Heading number portion
12.6.3
Item id
1773062572760_428
Heading id
s12.7.1
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?
Point c) says "or when the sign's location makes providing tactile elements impractical or unsafe", given that these requirements are for “tactile signs”, it is confusing to include a requirement that talks about signs that could not have tactile. Should this clause be in general signage requirements and refer to the tactile signs section?
What should we change it to?
Add it as a note, add it to different section or refer different section.
Why should we change it?
Clarity.
Heading text
12.7.1 Tactile sign design and build elements
Heading number portion
12.7.1
Item id
1773062643844_69
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?
Note 1 gives indication on what is required to be tactile. Perhaps there should also be clearer information on what is required to be tactile.
What should we change it to?
Add information (or refer location in document that contains information) on what is required to be tactile.
Why should we change it?
Ensure proper compliance.
Heading text
12.7.1 Tactile sign design and build elements
Heading number portion
12.7.1
Item id
1773062722647_578
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?
This section says "tactile signs at eye-level", but the previous section is for "tactile signage at doors" which can also be eye level. Does section 12.7.3 also apply to tactile signage at doors that is eye level?
What should we change it to?
Clarify statements and applicability.
Why should we change it?
Clarity.
Heading text
12.7.3 Tactile signs at eye-level
Heading number portion
12.7.3
Item id
1773062774282_830
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?
The Note for the section says "and installed within reach (600 mm max).", 600 mm max from what?
What should we change it to?
Specify from where the 600 mm is measured.
Why should we change it?
Ensure proper compliance.
Heading text
12.7.3 Tactile signs at eye-level
Heading number portion
12.7.3
Item id
1773062815006_240
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?
On point b): From experience designing interior signage, this requirement can conflict with the “character height” requirements for general characters. CSA B651-23 requires minimum 25 mm character height.
What should we change it to?
This requirement should be revised to indicate that it is for characters that are tactile ONLY and that characters that are tactile but also meant to be read visually shall adhere to clause 12.4 n) v) above.
Why should we change it?
Ensure proper compliance, avoid confusion.
Heading text
12.7.4 Tactile characters
Heading number portion
12.7.4
Item id
1773062860966_72
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?
On point f): Revise statement to make it very clear that this is for characters that are tactile ONLY. If they are tactile and visual (a combination of both) then they must adhere to clause 12.4 n) vii) and have combination of both lower and upper cases. This is very important to state to avoid conflicts and confusion.
What should we change it to?
Revise statement to make it very clear that this is for characters that are tactile ONLY. If they are tactile and visual (a combination of both) then they must adhere to clause 12.4 n) vii) and have combination of both lower and upper cases. This is very important to state to avoid conflicts and confusion.
Why should we change it?
Avoid confusion, ensure proper compliance.
Heading text
12.7.4 Tactile characters
Heading number portion
12.7.4
Item id
1773062914531_846
Heading id
s12.7.4
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?
On point g) "follow print for braille and tactile characters", what does this mean?
What should we change it to?
Please clarify.
Why should we change it?
Clarity.
Heading text
12.7.4 Tactile characters
Heading number portion
12.7.4
Item id
1773062960198_109
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?
Please write the application statement at the top of the section more clearly so that braille is applied everywhere where it is required. A bullet list would be helpful e.g.: The following signs require braille: Orientation signs Directional signs Identification signs
What should we change it to?
Clarify applicability.
Why should we change it?
Clarity, ensure proper compliance.
Heading text
12.8 Braille
Heading number portion
12.8
Item id
1773063035076_728
Heading id
s12.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
On point b): Capital “C” and add acronym “Code braille français uniformisé (CBFU)”
What should we change it to?
"code braille français uniformisé" -> “Code braille français uniformisé (CBFU)”
Why should we change it?
Clarity, consistency with Unified English Braille (UEB) notation, grammar.
Heading text
12.8 Braille
Heading number portion
12.8
Item id
1773063094596_401
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?
At point c) instead of staying "on bilingual and trilingual signs" just say "on multilingual signs"
What should we change it to?
"on bilingual and trilingual signs" -> "on multilingual signs"
Why should we change it?
Ensure applicability for all signs with many languages.
Heading text
12.8 Braille
Heading number portion
12.8
Item id
1773063128044_476
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?
On points e) and f): For readers who are not very familiar with Braille, add a succinct note on what Uncontracted and Contracted Braille is.
What should we change it to?
Add information.
Why should we change it?
Ensure comprehension and proper compliance.
Heading text
12.8 Braille
Heading number portion
12.8
Item id
1773063238064_426
Heading id
s12.10.2
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?
Having information for application like this is great! However, I worry that, since this technology is so new and not often incorporated, that it will be difficult for entities applying this standard to understand how to properly apply audible signs. For example, what does it mean for an audible sign to indicate a washroom? Does it say “washroom - toilette” when a user passes by? Is there a button by the washroom sign that voices the message when pressed (and if so, how does a user know the button is there if they are blind, being the user that would most benefit from audible signage)? There are many more questions about these types of signs and especially when installed in federally regulated buildings that may be resistant to introduce “sounds” inside of them. Please add clarification before adding to the standard.
What should we change it to?
Provide much more detail and information on the application of audible signs.
Why should we change it?
Clarity, information.
Heading text
12.10.2 Usage of audible signs
Heading number portion
12.10.2
Item id
1773063305826_586
Heading id
s12.11.1
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?
On point b) "be tested by people of various abilities": If this is to be a requirement there should be more details on who should test the sign. While it feels respectful to simply state “people of various abilities” it also makes it possible to people testing the signs to no include key possible users in their studies (people with vision impairments, people with cognitive disabilities, people with learning disabilities). These specific key users should be clearly stated here to ensure that testing and engagement is actually useful.
What should we change it to?
Add more information about engagement and testing.
Why should we change it?
Ensure proper installation and compliance.
Heading text
12.11.1 General
Heading number portion
12.11.1
Item id
1773063353516_548
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?
On point d) for contrast: Refer to clauses 12.11.4, 12.11.5 and 12.11.6.
What should we change it to?
Add reference to clauses 12.11.4, 12.11.5 and 12.11.6.
Why should we change it?
Ensure proper compliance and contrast levels.
Heading text
12.11.1 General
Heading number portion
12.11.1
Item id
1773063511875_88
Heading id
s12.11.6
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?
On point b) How is this type of contrast calculated? It is expressed differently that the other types of contrast in the standard and will lead the readers to confusion.
What should we change it to?
Add specific information on contrast calculation methodology to be used.
Why should we change it?
Clarity, proper adherence to standard.
Heading text
12.11.6 Colour factors
Heading number portion
12.11.6
Item id
1773063587450_12
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?
There is a Note on the font size "while regular text is consistent with font sizes usually found in body text". The statement is vague, a specific minimum font size for digital and electronic signs should be required within this standard.
What should we change it to?
Add a specific minimum font size for digital and electronic signs to this standard.
Why should we change it?
Consistency, proper application of the standard.
Heading text
12.11.6 Colour factors
Heading number portion
12.11.6
Item id
1773063662107_488
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?
On the point c) Note: Clauses 10.2 and 12.5 do not speak to digital colour contrast.
What should we change it to?
Elaborate on requirements for digital and electronical colour contrast.
Why should we change it?
Proper compliance.
Heading text
12.11.6 Colour factors
Heading number portion
12.11.6
Item id
1773063703452_137
Heading id
s12.11.6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
The language of point d) (e.g. “favour”) makes it sound like a recommendation, not a requirement. If it is not a requirement, replace it with a Note instead.
What should we change it to?
Adopt a language more proper to requirements.
Why should we change it?
Clarity, consistency in language.
Heading text
12.11.6 Colour factors
Heading number portion
12.11.6
Item id
1773063751279_663
Heading id
s12.11.6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
Similarly to the previous editorial comment, the language in point e) “avoid” should not be used with “shall” since it negates the mandatory element of the requirement. Clause should be re-worded to “not use colour as the sole means of communicating messaging.”.
What should we change it to?
Modify language to be more proper for requirements.
Why should we change it?
Consistency, proper language.
Heading text
12.11.6 Colour factors
Heading number portion
12.11.6
Item id
1773063785007_294
Heading id
s12.11.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
Again, for point a) "avoid” should not be used with “shall” since it negates the mandatory element of the requirement. Clause should be re-worded to “not use scrolling text and motion in displayed content.”.
What should we change it to?
Edit language.
Why should we change it?
Consistency, clarity.
Heading text
12.11.7 Messaging
Heading number portion
12.11.7
Item id
1773063823330_945
Heading id
s12.11.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
For points a) and b) in this section For a): “avoid” should not be used with “shall” since it negates the mandatory element of the requirement. Clause should be re-worded to “no use of flashing elements, text or backgrounds.”. For b): “avoid” should not be used with “shall” since it negates the mandatory element of the requirement. Clause should be re-worded to “not use not use animated text, shapes or graphics”.
What should we change it to?
Edit language used.
Why should we change it?
Consistency, clarity.
Heading text
12.11.8 Animations, flashing elements and graphics
Heading number portion
12.11.8
Item id
1773063900513_753
Heading id
s12
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Here are other requirements for consideration for maps, from the PSPC Parliamentary Precinct Branch UA Best Practices: ⦁ Where eye-level signs, such as maps, are supported on two vertical posts, a tapping rail located between the posts at 250 – 400 mm above ground level will help prevent an unsuspecting pedestrian colliding with the sign; The sign does not extend more than 150 mm beyond the posts; and The rail and posts contrast visually with the background surfaces. ⦁ Maps indicate the slopes of routes, accessibility features, amenities and potentially challenging areas.
What should we change it to?
Consider adding further requirements and recommendations for non-tactile maps.
Why should we change it?
Increase accessibility.
Heading text
13. Maps (non-tactile)
Heading number portion
13.
Item id
1773063961531_344
Heading id
s13.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
Use "and" instead of "or". For many users, maps with only a North arrow is not useful to determine where they are.
What should we change it to?
"Orientation features, such as a north arrow or a “you are here” pin, shall be used to assist users in understanding the map's orientation and their current position." -> "Orientation features, such as a north arrow and a “you are here” pin, shall be used to assist users in understanding the map's orientation and their current position."
Why should we change it?
Enhance compliance and accesssibility.
Heading text
13.4 Orientation
Heading number portion
13.4
Item id
1773063984032_811
Heading id
s13.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
Refer to plain language standard and clauses on characters.
What should we change it to?
Refer to plain language standard and clauses on characters.
Why should we change it?
Clarity, compliance.
Heading text
13.5 Legend
Heading number portion
13.5
Submission ID
64887
Submitted by
Isa-Bella.Leclair@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
Submitted on
Mon, 03/09/2026 - 09:46
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64911's submission

CAN-ASC-2.4 – Wayfinding and Signage
Feedback items
Item id
1773336255521_442
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?
Include a clear introduction paragraph defining wayfinding and signage in greater depth.
What should we change it to?
Include a clear introduction paragraph defining wayfinding and signage, outlining their importance and operational definitions, and explaining how both concepts interrelate within built environments, and how outdoor spaces requirements may differ from built environment requirements.
Why should we change it?
Because it is missing in the standard
Heading text
6.1 Background
Heading number portion
6.1
Item id
1773336930244_639
Heading id
s6.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
add to note
What should we change it to?
Tactile diagrams, tactile maps, and acoustics are excluded from this Standard as they are addressed in separate specialized accessibility standards; only Tactile Walking Surface Indicators (TWSI) and tactile signage are included here due to their direct link with spatial orientation.
Why should we change it?
to provide proper justification behind the exclusion
Heading text
6.1 Background
Heading number portion
6.1
Item id
1773337081691_632
Heading id
s7.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
6.1 note, 7.3a note and 7.3b note all provide justification for the exclusion. 7.3c should provide the same.
What should we change it to?
Add a note to 7.3c to provide the reason for exclusion and ensure consistency between 7.3 and 6.1 note.
Why should we change it?
The reader should know the reasoning behind the exclusions
Heading text
7.3 Exclusions
Heading number portion
7.3
Item id
1773337346847_572
Heading id
s7.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
consider including Tactile maps and diagrams rather than excluding
What should we change it to?
consider including Tactile maps and diagrams rather than excluding
Why should we change it?
tactile maps are a known and used, and are established wayfinding tools. Tactile maps and diagrams are well-established, essential, and effective wayfinding tools for people who are blind or have low vision (BVI). They are used to convey spatial information—such as building layouts, transit systems, or city neighborhoods—through touch, allowing users to build a mental map (cognitive map) of an environment to enhance their independence
Heading text
7.3 Exclusions
Heading number portion
7.3
Item id
1773337643861_366
Heading id
s10.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Expand 2nd paragraph of 10.1 to recognize those with hearing limitations
What should we change it to?
Lighting affects people with hearing limitations who rely on visual cues (e.g., lip reading, signed language).
Why should we change it?
Lighting affects more than the identified groups. Individuals with hearing limitations require good, direct lighting on a speaker's face to lip-read effectively.
Heading text
10.1 Lighting
Heading number portion
10.1
Item id
1773338150953_537
Heading id
s10.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
in 10.1.5, recognize that it is equally important to respect natural darkness at night for outdoor environments
What should we change it to?
10.1.5 Lighting requirements apply only when facilities are open or operational. Maintain natural darkness at night in non operational or ecological areas.
Why should we change it?
10.1.5 to avoid disrupting the wildlife, and save energy, and preserve outdoor experience where darkness is required (stargazing, Parks Canada's Dark Sky Preserves, etc.)
Heading text
10.1 Lighting
Heading number portion
10.1
Item id
1773338551831_335
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?
10.1.5a says maintain 50 lx but that should be the minimum
What should we change it to?
Exterior lighting shall: a. be a minimum lighting level of 50 lx during the hours the facility remains open for use, except in main driveways where lighting may be reduced to 30 lux
Why should we change it?
to align with the Outdoor Spaces standard
Heading text
10.1.5 Exterior lighting
Heading number portion
10.1.5
Item id
1773339232819_691
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?
10.1.5 applies to exterior lighting but not necessarily outdoor spaces lighting.
What should we change it to?
Differentiate between built environment exterior lighting and outdoor spaces lighting or refer to Outdoor Spaces standard.
Why should we change it?
Currently it's an application error for outdoor spaces. Would not apply broadly across outdoor spaces.
Heading text
10.1.5 Exterior lighting
Heading number portion
10.1.5
Item id
1773339352077_261
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?
10.1.5d does not apply to outdoor spaces at all.
What should we change it to?
10.1.5d Exterior lighting shall, for built environment only, maintain a minimum lighting level for facilities outside of daylight hours at 50 lx (dusk to dawn).
Why should we change it?
10.1.5 applies to exterior lighting but not necessarily outdoor spaces lighting. See Outdoor Spaces standard for details.
Heading text
10.1.5 Exterior lighting
Heading number portion
10.1.5
Item id
1773339887897_733
Heading id
s11.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Add Note 4 and to definitions clarifying the term extensive area
What should we change it to?
Suggested: An extensive area is a large, complex, or multi‑zone environment where a person cannot easily understand the layout, locate destinations, or maintain orientation without structured wayfinding support.
Why should we change it?
Because extensive area is a vague and unknown term, subjective to interpretation
Heading text
11.1 General
Heading number portion
11.1
Item id
1773339972877_428
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
duplication and conflicts with Outdoor Spaces Standard
What should we change it to?
reference Outdoor Spaces Standard for consistency
Why should we change it?
duplication and conflicts with Outdoor Spaces Standard
Heading text
11.3 Walking surfaces of interior and exterior paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1773340676962_940
Heading id
s11.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
Change the note to show relationship between TWSI and attention/direction indicator
What should we change it to?
Note: This Standard uses the terminology of two sub-terms to Tactile Walking Surface Indicator, “attention indicator” and “direction indicator”, to align with other National Standards of Canada.
Why should we change it?
To avoid confusion and provide clarity
Heading text
11.4 Tactile Walking Surface Indicator (TWSI)
Heading number portion
11.4
Item id
1773341552057_531
Heading id
s13.10
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Add the feedback mechanism as a requirement
What should we change it to?
13.10e Location plans shall provide a feedback mechanism for reporting accessibility issues, per CAN ASC 2.1 Clause 9.4.
Why should we change it?
to be consistent with the Outdoor Spaces standard
Heading text
13.10 Construction and maintenance
Heading number portion
13.10
Item id
1773342058533_915
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?
Sub-divide built environment paths of travel and outdoor spaces paths of travel.
What should we change it to?
Built environment paths of travel shall: a-d Outdoor spaces paths of travel shall: a. comply with CAN-ASC-2.1 b. not have wayfinding or signage elements obstruct the path of travel in accordance with CAN-ASC-2.1 c.... d...
Why should we change it?
CSA/ASC B651 is appropriate for only for indoor and built spaces but for outdoor spaces the standard should reference the outdoor spaces standard instead.
Heading text
11.2.1 Obstacles on paths of travel
Heading number portion
11.2.1
Item id
1773342459148_26
Heading id
s12.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
12.4n-v. is only valid for built environment signs. Add reference to CAN/ASC 2.1 for outdoor spaces signs
What should we change it to?
12.4n-v have letters and numbers that have the character height sized relative to the intended viewing distance, for built environments in accordance with CSA/ASC B651:23, clause 4.6.3, table 7 and for outdoor spaces aligning with CAN/ASC 2.1 clause 10.2 note 2;
Why should we change it?
CSA/ASC B651 is appropriate for only for indoor and built spaces but for outdoor spaces the standard should reference the outdoor spaces standard instead.
Heading text
12.4 Configuration
Heading number portion
12.4
Submission ID
64911
Submitted by
QRedekop
Submitted on
Thu, 03/12/2026 - 15:08
Consent to contact
Yes

Pagination

  • First page first
  • Previous page Prev
  • Page 57
  • Page 58
  • Current page 59
  • Page 60
  • Page 61
  • Next page Next
  • Last page last

Report a problem on this page

Report a problem on this page
Please select all that apply (required)

Share widget block

Date modified:
2026-08-02

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