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

Language switcher

  • Françaisfr
Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search Accessbility Standards Canada


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

Main navigation

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

Mobile Menu

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

You are here

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

Search results


Displaying 581 - 590 of 785

Individual 64669's submission

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

Individual 64707's submission

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

Individual 64729's submission

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

Individual 64729's submission

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

Individual 64743's submission

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

Individual 64779's submission

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

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

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
Please select all that apply (required)

Share widget

Date modified:
2026-06-10

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