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