Comment on raised tactile and Braille signage and wayfinding information in buildings
The Australian Human Rights Commission recently received a letter from a community based advocacy group concerned about the availability of raised tactile and Braille signage and wayfinding information in buildings.
The organisation expressed its concern that the soon to be released draft DDA Premises Standard would not sufficiently address these issues.
Below is a slightly edited copy of the response sent to the organisation which the Commissioner is making more widely available.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to comment on your concerns about the limited references to the use of raised tactile and Braille signage in the Building Code of Australia and the proposed DDA Disability Standard on Access to Premises (Premises Standard), as well as the broader questions of wayfinding.
Since the introduction of the DDA it has been clear that there are inconsistencies
between the requirements imposed on building owners and operators through
State and Territory building law and responsibilities in relation to premises
under anti-discrimination law.
These inconsistencies are of two types. First building law is limited to the basic construction of the shell of a building and its essential services such as sanitary facilities, lifts and safety features, whereas anti-discrimination law extends beyond the basic features to include equitable access to and use of the building by the public.
So, for example, while the Building Code of Australia does cover some information signage within lifts and on sanitary facilities it does not cover signage related to building occupants or wayfinding information on the location of, for example, a reception. It is feasible that DDA complaints could be lodged about those informational or wayfinding aspects of a building not covered by the Building Code of Australia.
Secondly, in many areas where the Building Code of Australia does include accessible features it is accepted that the level of access provided is not sufficient to meet responsibilities under anti-discrimination law.
The difficulty faced by people with disabilities and building owners and operators is that anti-discrimination law is not written in a way that gives a clear indication of what has to be done to avoid discrimination. As a consequence defining what access means has been reliant on individual complaints and individual outcomes which may or may not meet the needs of other people with similar disabilities.
Over the past few years the Commission, along with representatives from the disability sector (the DDA Standards Project) industry, design professionals, regulators and Government has been working with the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) on the development of progressive changes to the Building Code of Australia to make it more consistent with the requirements of the DDA.
In 2000 the Federal Government made changes to the DDA to allow for the development of a Premises Standard. This change allowed for a more systematic review of the access related provisions of the Building Code of Australia with a view to making changes sufficient for the relevant parts of the Building Code of Australia to be adopted as part of the Premises Standard.
Doing this would mean that compliance with the new Building Code of Australia would mean that a developer would also be complying with the Premises Standard and therefore the DDA in relation to those matters covered by the Standard.
The task given to the Building Access Policy Committee (BAPC), which
was set up by the ABCB to develop drafts, was to limit the Premises Standard
at this stage to those matters covered by the Building Code of Australia.
So, for example, the Premises Standard will cover the construction of
accessible doorways and the width of an accessible path of travel, but
will not cover certain fit-out features such as the height of a service
counter, because they are not currently covered by the Building Code of
Australia.
Those features of a building not covered by the Building Code of Australia or this part of the Premises Standard, but which are covered by the DDA, will generally continue to be subject to the normal complaints mechanism in the DDA. A future Premises Standard may well address these outstanding issues, but in the meantime people with disabilities may continue to lodge complaints over those issues if they feel they have been discriminated against.
The issue of raised tactile signage, warning information and wayfinding information have been extensively discussed at the BAPC and with organisations such as Blind Citizens Australia, which as you know is the national peak body advocating for the rights of blind people.
The proposed changes to the Building Code of Australia and draft Premises Standard will include a range of provisions important to blind people and people with a vision impairment including:
" requirements for clear safety identification on glazed doorways
and areas that might be mistaken for doorways;
" requirements for raised tactile and Braille information in lifts
and lift lobbies as well as audible information;
" requirements for raised tactile and Braille information at all
sanitary facilities and rooms with hearing augmentations systems fitted;
" requirements for tactile indicators warning people that they are
approaching stairways, escalators, travelators, ramps or overhead obstructions
less than 2 meters above the ground where no suitable barrier exists;
" the draft also includes details on the design and installation
of raised tactile and Braille signage.
Some of these proposals will be new to the Building Code of Australia and some will be extensions to current provisions.
During discussions at the BAPC the disability sector representatives also raised questions relating to wayfinding information, arguing that the Building Code of Australia should include wayfinding information such as the location of reception desks, key layout features and the location of particular services or facilities not currently covered by the Building Code of Australia.
In looking at the question of wayfinding (as with every other issue raised at the BAPC) the Commission has asked the following questions:
1. is it an issue covered by the DDA;
2. is it an issue arguably covered by the Building Code of Australia;
3. are there readily available solutions for industry to apply;
4. are the possible solutions able to deliver effective, and practicable
benefits for most people with disabilities;
5. is there a consistent view that the solutions proposed would actually
deliver the outcomes sought;
6. would the solutions meet the general objectives of the DDA considering
the provisions for unjustifiable hardship.
In trying to answer these questions the Commission held discussions with Blind Citizens Australia, access consultants, international advocacy and technical bodies in the US, UK and Canada and other individuals with an interest in access issues.
Unfortunately, the conclusion we came to was that there is currently insufficient information on the most appropriate solutions and no consistent view on how to apply possible solutions. Faced with this situation the Commission concluded that further research was required before workable solutions could be considered for inclusion in the Premises Standard.
This conclusion was shared by the other members of the BAPC and, while Blind Citizens Australia have understandably expressed concern about the inevitable delay this will cause I believe they understand the reasons for this decision.
The ABCB has made commitments to working towards resolving this problem and the Commission will certainly push for a speedy resolution. Blind Citizens Australia, the ABCB and the Commission are currently involved with a research project looking at some aspects of this problem.
I can assure you that I appreciate the need to find solutions to those outstanding access issues that are covered by the DDA, but not included in this part of the Premises Standard and share your eagerness to have them resolved quickly. We cannot resolve these issues, however, until we are confident we have solutions that deliver benefits in a consistent way and which will work from a regulatory point of view.
I would encourage your organisation and its members to participate in the upcoming consultation on the draft Premises Standard due to take place early next year.
I would also encourage you to forward to me your ideas on how effective, consistent and universally usable wayfinding solutions might be found.
Yours sincerely
Dr Sev Ozdowski OAM
Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner
4 December 2003
