Information and Communications Standards Development Committee

Learn about the group that makes recommendations on how to improve existing information and communications standards under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA).

On this page Skip this page navigation

Background

In 2017, the Minister Responsible for Accessibility established the Information and Communications Standards Development Committee, a group of representatives from various sectors, including business, municipalities and people with disabilities, to make recommendations on our existing information and communications standards.

Recommendations

The committee put forward initial recommendations and asked for public feedback to help them draft their final recommendations to the Minister Responsible for Accessibility.

The committee has reviewed all comments, finalized their recommendations and submitted them to the Minister for Seniors and Accessibility for consideration. Read the final recommendations.

List of members and representation

The following is a full list of the committee members including the organization or sector they are representing. Committee membership may be subject to change.

Voting members:

Rich Donovan (chair), Return on Disability Group
Pina D’Intino, Disability Community Representative
David Best, Disability Community Representative
Jennifer Cowan, Elgin County
James Roots, Canadian Association of the Deaf
Richard Watters, Enable Wellness Incorporated
Kim Adeney, The Regional Municipality of York
David Berman, David Berman Communications
Louise Bray, Ontario Library Service North
Robert Gaunt, CNIB
Gary Malkowski, Canadian Hearing Society
Jutta Treviranus, Inclusive Design Research Centre
Mattieu Vachon, Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'Ontario
Diane Wagner, Learning Disabilities Ontario
Chantal Perreault, Regional Municipality of Niagara
Kevin Shaw, TellMe TV Inc.
Louie Di Palma, Ontario Chamber of Commerce

Non-voting members:

Kathy McLachlan, Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility
Kate Acs, Ministry of Education
Michele Babin, Ministry Advanced Education and Skills Development
Adam Haviaras, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

Scope and timelines

A standards development committee will review the information and communications standards, as prescribed in Section 9 of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It is summarized as follows:

re-examine the long-term objectives of the standard
if required, revise the measures, policies, practices and requirements to be implemented on or before January 1, 2025, and the timeframe for their implementation
develop another proposed accessibility standard containing modifications or additions that the committee deems advisable for public comment
make such changes it considers advisable to the proposed accessibility standards based on comments received and make recommendations for my consideration

The committee should also consider all possible solutions and tactics, including non-regulatory approaches.

The Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility has undertaken research and consultations with people with disabilities, obligated organizations and some industry experts.

Feedback

The majority of feedback and findings relate to accessible website requirements under the standard. The Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility heard that the need for accessible digital communications is increasingly important to people with disabilities. For obligated organizations, flexibility to adapt to advancements in technology, while balancing the need for clear compliance requirements is a challenge, and these challenges may be unique based on sector (public or private).

Common difficulties in the Canadian and international experience with technical requirements similar to this standard presents the opportunity for Ontario to lead. Additionally, during the 2016 Ontario Budget discussions, a commitment was made to the Legislative Assembly to review the use of specific file formats. The Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility will be sharing this research with the committee.

In addition to the above, the committee’s review may take into account all information and communications standards, such as website requirements, formats, and educational and training institutions and public libraries. The government has, however, heard from obligated organizations that changing requirements before they have completely taken effect can create a significant implementation burden.

The minister requested the committee to focus the review on requirements for sectors that have been in effect for more than 24 months, as well as to identify any gaps that may remain in the standards.

The minister encouraged the committee to explore the potential impact of new and emerging technologies, such as smartphone applications, with the goal of considering the possible solutions presented by the next generation of innovative technologies in achieving the long-term objective of the standard, to make information and communications accessible for persons with disabilities.

Due to the technical nature of some areas of the standard, the minister invited the chair to form technical sub-committees to assist in the timely completion of the committee’s work. This may be helpful for the education and website-specific areas of the standard.

Throughout the process, the members of the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council sitting on the standards development committee are encouraged to keep the council informed of the committee’s progress.

Guidelines for recommendations

The following guidelines are intended to support the work of the committee as they develop their recommendations:

Respect and be complementary to the principles, purpose and requirements of the Act, and support the end goal of achieving accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities on or before January 1, 2025, taking into account:
- the range of disabilities that the measures, policies, practices and requirements are intended to address
- the nature of the barriers that the measures, policies, practices and requirements are intended to identify, remove and prevent
- any technical and economic considerations/ impacts that may be associated with their implementation (for example, for organizations, sectors, and the province more broadly)
Focus efforts on preventing barriers both now and in the future.
Work within existing Ontario legislative and regulatory frameworks.
Focus on simplification and clarity of the standards where possible.
Consider inter-jurisdictional best practices and innovative solutions (such as those from emerging “shared” economies), keeping in mind the context of Ontario’s current regulatory framework around providers of information and communications (for example, educational institutions and public libraries), municipalities, and other obligated organizations in meeting or exceeding standards requirements.
Recognize that while accessible information and communications should be integrated and accessible to people with as wide a range of disabilities and abilities as possible, there will continue to be a need for individual accommodation for persons with disabilities.
Consider economic implications and feasibility for the sector to comply.
Consider the ‘enforceability’ of the requirements to support compliance and enforcement of the standards.
Where appropriate, reflect international standards, legislation, regulation, codes, and best practices in Ontario, other provinces, and internationally, in the area of information and communications and accessibility.

Key deliverables and timelines

The committee will complete the following key deliverables within the specified timelines:

Mandatory orientation and training—all members of the committee will complete an initial orientation and training during the first meeting of the committee.
Meetings—the committee will meet for one or two-day sessions, approximately every six weeks, or as needed.
Committee work plan—the committee will prepare and provide to the minister a draft work plan early in the review. The work plan will outline key milestones, activities, and timelines to achieve the mandate described in this letter.
Proposed recommendations for revisions to the standards—within six months or sooner of the first meeting, the committee will deliver to the minister proposed recommendations for public review.
Finalizing recommendations for revisions to the standards—a report on comments received during the public review will be prepared by the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility and the comments will be given to the Committee for its consideration. The committee will consider public comments, seek additional information if needed, and make changes to the proposed revisions based on public comments as the committee deems advisable. The committee will submit the final recommendations to the minister along with a report on its consideration of public comments, no later than 14 weeks after receiving the report and public comments.
Meeting minutes and progress reports—no later than four weeks following each of its meetings, the committee will approve and provide the minister its meeting minutes, which are to include a progress report on the review of the information and communications standards.

Meeting Minutes

Meeting 9: January 22 and January 23, 2020
Meeting 8: December 10 and December 11, 2018
Meeting 7: January 31 and February 1, 2018
Meeting 6: December 13 and 14, 2017
Meeting 5: October 25 and 26, 2017
Meeting 4: September 13 and 14, 2017
Meeting 3: August 2 and 3, 2017
Meeting 2 : June 21 and 22, 2017
Meeting 1: May 8 and 9, 2017
Orientation Meeting: March 29 and 30, 2017

Meeting 9: January 22 and 23, 2020

Letter from chair to the minister

February 23^rd, 2020

The Honourable Raymond Cho
Minister for Seniors and Accessibility
777 Bay Street, 5^th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C8

Dear Minister Cho,

Re: Information and Communication Standards Review Meeting 9 – Minutes

On behalf of the members of the Information and Communication Standards Development Committee (Committee), I am pleased to submit the committee-approved minutes from Meeting 9 held on January 22^nd and 23^rd, and to provide you with a brief update.

The Committee worked through the following key deliverables:

The Act requires that the Initial Report be posted online for public feedback and comment for at least 45 days and that the material be reviewed prior to the final meeting.
Voted on 2 new recommendations and finalized 31 existing recommendations, and
Finalized the report by confirming support for all the Committee’s recommendations through a final vote.

With the vote on the Committee’s final recommendations complete and passed, the work of the Committee is complete. Ministry staff will now be working with me to ensure that the “Review of the Information and Communications Standards – 2020 Final Recommendations Report” is submitted to you on the Committee’s behalf.

Sincerely,
(Original signed by)
Rich Donovan
Chair, Information and Communication Standards Development Committee

Day 1 meeting information

Date: January 22, 2020

Location: Universal Boardroom, 6^th Floor, 777 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario

Format of committee minutes and references: For the purposes of referencing Committee documents and items in the minutes: ‘M’ (Meeting) represents the meeting number/minute items/action items and ‘partial’ represents limited attendance.

Day 1 present

Standards Development Committee members: Rich Donovan (Chair), Kim Adeney, David Berman, David Best, Jennifer Cowan, Pina D’Intino, Robert Gaunt, Gary Malkowski, James Roots, Kevin Shaw, Jutta Treviranus, Diane Wagner, Richard Watters and Louise Bray

Non-voting Standards Development Committee members: Kate Acs (Ministry of Education), Adam Haviaras (Ministry of Heritage, Sports, Tourism and Culture Industries, partial)

Minister’s Office staff: Michael Thomas (partial)

Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility staff: Susan Picarello (partial), Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Jenna Strathearn, Hayden Porch, Stephanie Van Laeken, Vinothini Kajendran, Kulpreet Kaur Thukral and Nilusha Rattansi

Guests: David Lepofsky (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance), Barbara Collier (Communication Access Disabilities Canada)

Captionist: Gemme Humenny

Attendant support: Carolyn Loppie, Samira Kassem

Interpreters: Sean Power, Gloria Brifoglio, Jennifer Hawkings

Regrets: Louie DiPalma, Chantal Perreault, Kathy McLachlan (Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility)

Day 1 meeting minutes

M 9.1: housekeeping

Ministry staff took the Committee through a series of housekeeping items such as emergency procedures, roll call and an overview of process in accordance with the day’s agenda.

M 9.2: Chair’s welcome

Rich Donovan, the Chair of the Committee, formally welcomed the members back and provided direction on what the Committee could expect from the proceedings.

M 9.3: overview of public feedback

Ministry staff took the Committee through the public survey data and the written submissions collected as part of the public feedback phase of the standards development process.

M 9. 4: stakeholder presentations

The Committee heard two presentations from stakeholder groups: Communication Disabilities Access Canada and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

M 9. 4.1 Communication Disabilities Access Canada

A representative from Communication Disabilities Access Canada presented to the Committee on the importance of the inclusion of non-sensory (in other words, speech and language disabilities) communication disabilities such as traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, dyslexia, autism, et cetera and highlighted the ways that simple language could benefit all Ontarians.

A question and answer session followed the presentation.

M 9. 4.2 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance presentation focused on the need for continued regulatory amendments, the importance of keeping pace with emerging technologies, inclusion of goods (in other words, products and product labels) need to be accessible, strengthening accessible procurement provisions and reducing the number and breadth of exemptions.

A question and answer session followed.

The Committee voted on each of the following issues to make material changes to recommendations in the Committee’s Initial Recommendations Report and to add new sections and/or recommendations to the report.

Motion 9.5.1: carried – long-term objective

The Committee suggests amending the long-term objective: That people with disabilities be able to participate fully and equitably in the creation and use of information and communication.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.5.2: carried – reinforce products and product labels

The Committee suggested adding content to recommendation four:

In order to ensure a solution to this issue is coordinated between the federal and provincial jurisdictions, the Committee proposes the following:

The Government of Ontario should meet with the Government of Canada to look for solutions to the problem of accessible products and product labels. These solutions may include clarifying jurisdictional authority over different products. In addition, it is recommended that Ontario meet with various industries to explore non-regulatory solutions to this issue. Medical labelling should be a priority for action.

Timeline: One year for Ontario and Canada to produce a report that sets a strategic direction on the recommendations above. If a report is not created by the governments of Ontario and Canada by this time, then the recommendation is that Ontario develop a strategy within one additional year to address this, including creating an expert committee.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.5.3: carried – agreement between persons with disabilities and organizations

The Committee suggested amending the timeline for recommendation seven:

The Committee proposes the following:

The issue of a lack of mechanism to address disagreement between organizations and people with disabilities in any section of the regulation should be referred to the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council.

Timeline: Referred to the council immediately following the submission of the Final Proposed Recommendations. The council should develop a mechanism within one year.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.5.4: carried – harmonization of section 12

The Committee voted to add a sentence to recommendation eight:

The Committee proposes the following:

Requirements for alternate formats and communication supports should be combined and moved to one place, in the general requirements section of the regulation. There should be no material change in the requirements, except for any other recommendations made by the Committee regarding section 12. A reference to the combined section in the general requirements should be made whenever requirements for alternative formats and communication supports are mentioned in the regulation.

Timeline: Immediate.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.5.5: carried – on-demand American Sign Language and langue des signes québécoise translations

The Committee voted to include language covering the deafblind community in recommendation 10:

The Committee proposes the following:

The Government of Ontario should convene a meeting of deaf, hard of hearing and deafblind stakeholders to determine which materials should be provided by the Government of Ontario to the public in American Sign Language and langue des signes québécoise translation. The Committee recommends that following the meeting, the materials identified start to be made available on-demand.

Timeline: One year for the meeting to occur, and January 1, 2021 for the requirement to be effective.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.5.6: carried – unacceptable emergency outcomes and preparedness

The Committee voted to update recommendation 12 to take into account the change in responsible ministries:

The Committee strongly recommends the following to help protect the lives of people with disabilities and their families:

Disability and accessibility should be front and centre in the upcoming review of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. To that end, the Solicitor General, who has responsibility for emergency management, should involve people with disabilities in the review. The Solicitor General should specifically include the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council. The same process should occur when the Fire Code is next reviewed.

Timeline: Immediate.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.5.7: carried – procurement

The Committee voted to amend the timelines and add a sentence to recommendation 14:

The Committee proposes the following:

The Government of Ontario and designated public sector organizations shall incorporate accessibility design, criteria and features when procuring or buying goods, services or facilities. These criteria include:

using qualified third-party evaluation certification services established through programs such as:
- the U.S. Access Board Trusted Tester Program
- inclusive design or accessibility certificate programs such as those offered by colleges or universities
- professional certifications from organizations such as the International Association of Accessibility Professionals
- other professional service vendors that may qualify for such activities
both manual and automated verification of compliance to technical web and software criteria, not just automated testing
functional testing of usability by persons with disabilities
interoperability with alternative access systems (as defined in the glossary)
sign language and other communication modalities
the requirement to procure accessible authoring and development tools

This requirement would be in addition to the general accessible procurement requirements in the regulation. The reference criteria for authoring tools would be Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (A&B)

Timeline: January 1, 2022. Where an obligated organization has entered into a contract before January 1, 2022, it is not required to meet the requirements of this section. The intent of the Committee is not to allow grandfathering past 2023.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.5.8: carried – differentiating organizations/high impact organizations

The Committee voted to change the timelines in recommendation 15:

The Committee proposes the following:

Create a definition for ‘high-impact’ organizations. One such definition might be an organization that has one or more Ontario employees and meets either of the following criteria:
- One million or more average annual users in Ontario (free or paid)
- $10 million or more in yearly global revenues
These newly defined high-impact organizations would have to comply with the Information and Communications Standards and report under the act, and be subject to the same requirements as large organizations
For such businesses as described above that are under federal instead of Ontario jurisdiction, or with no employees in Ontario, the province should engage in consultation with businesses and the federal government to determine and harmonize mechanisms to regulate them

Timeline: One year with proactive outreach.

Motion carried.

Day 2 meeting information

Date: January 23, 2020

Location: Universal Boardroom, 6^th Floor, 777 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario

Format of committee minutes and references: For the purposes of referencing Committee documents and items in the minutes: ‘M’ (Meeting) represents the meeting number/minute items/action items and ‘partial’ represents limited attendance.

Day 2 present

Standards Development Committee Members: Rich Donovan (Chair), Kim Adeney, David Berman, David Best, Jennifer Cowan, Pina D’Intino, Robert Gaunt, Gary Malkowski, James Roots, Kevin Shaw, Jutta Treviranus, Diane Wagner and Richard Watters

Non-voting Standards Development Committee members: Kate Acs (Ministry of Education), Adam Haviaras (Ministry of Heritage, Sports, Tourism and Culture Industries, partial) and Kathy McLachlan (Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility, partial)

Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility staff: Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Hayden Porch, Jenna Strathearn, Meridith St. Pierre, Vinothini Kajendran, Kulpreet Kaur Thukral and Nilusha Rattansi

Captionist: Gemme Humenny

Attendant support: Carolyn Loppie, Samira Kassem

Interpreters: Sean Power, Gloria Brifoglio, Jennifer Hawkings

Regrets: Louie DiPalma, Chantal Perreault, Kathy McLachlan (Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility)

Day 2 meeting minutes

M 9.6: Chair’s welcome and roll call

The Chair welcomed everyone back for day 2 of the meeting and conducted roll call.

M 9.7: presentation of public feedback – Phase 2

Ministry staff presented on the public survey data and written submissions received for Phase 2 of the Committee’s recommendations.

M 9.8: continue discussion on recommendations

The Committee continued discussions from day 1 including the remaining recommendations in the Initial Recommendations Report.

Motion 9.8.1: carried – extranet exemption

The Committee voted to alter the timeline for recommendation 19:

The Committee proposes the following:

The exemption for public-facing websites with a log-in (previously referred to as extranets) should be removed and these types of websites should be required to comply with the regulation.

Timeframe: New public-facing websites with a log-in must comply by January 1, 2022, and all public-facing websites with a log-in must comply by January 1, 2023.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.8.2: carried – intranets exemption

The Committee voted to alter the timeline in recommendation 20:

The Committee proposes the following:

The exemption for employee-facing websites and content (previously referred to as intranets) should be removed and, like all other websites, these types of websites should be required to comply with the regulation.

Timeline: New employee-facing websites must comply by January 1, 2022, and all employee-facing websites must comply by January 1, 2023.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.8.3: carried – archival content exemption

The Committee voted to add some wording to recommendation 21:

The Committee proposes the following:

A category should be created for older archived content. A potential model for this would be the federal Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada archived content policy. This would grant an exemption only to non-active documents. Active content, which is anything that requires input or, like forms, can be changed, will not be covered under this exemption. Pre-2012 images used for navigation in refreshed websites must be made accessible.

Timeframe: Immediate.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.8.4: carried – live captions and audio descriptions

The Committee voted to change the timeline for recommendation 22:

The Committee proposes the following:

By January 1, 2022, the exemptions to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2 guidelines regarding live captioning and audio descriptions should be removed.
Between now and January 1, 2022, obligated organizations should put in place the infrastructure to support live captioning and audio description. Organizations which are currently exempt and are required to prepare a multi-year plan should include progress toward this infrastructure in their plan.

Timeline: Exemptions removed by January 1, 2025, to be evaluated for acceleration by the next committee.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.8.5: carried – new and emerging technologies

The Committee proposed the following new recommendation, recommendation 24:

New and emerging technologies present the risk of discriminating against persons with disabilities. As well, people with disabilities are more vulnerable to abuses of new technology and existing and emerging privacy protections do not work for them. These issues include:

data gaps: people with disabilities are not reflected in existing data
algorithmic bias: data analytics reflect human bias

Even if and when these risks are ameliorated, these technologies (for example, artificial intelligence) make decisions and take actions based on an average or majority. People with disabilities are very different from each other and often represent a minority of one. People with disabilities are harmed by data in both directions. The risks are dismissed because they only affect a small number. The benefits are not pursued because they only benefit a small number.

Note: additional resources available in appendix C.

The Committee proposes the following:

When decisions are being based on data analytics using population data, there should be a disability impact assessment.

Government should immediately create a task force to work with the government on the design and testing of its digital services and to investigate risks, risk mitigation and opportunities in the context of the disability ecosystem. The task force should include experts in disability use case, emerging technologies and data analytics, the majority of whom are people with disabilities from a wide functional cross-section. This task force shall act as an ongoing bridge to Phase 2.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.8.6: carried – update Web Content Accessibility Guidelines content

The Committee proposed the following new recommendation, recommendation 25:

The version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines referred to in section 14 of the regulation is out of date.

The Committee proposes the following:

When the requirement to comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 AA in section 14 is fully implemented (January 1, 2021), government should update the requirement to the most recently published version of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (for example, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1) within one additional year.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.8.7: carried – purchase of accessible teaching material

The Committee added wording to recommendation 26 (formerly recommendation 24):

The Committee proposes the following:

It is recommended that obligated organizations that are educational or training institutions be required to order text books or other curricula materials, printed or digital, from producers who agree to provide accessible or conversion-ready versions, in the same time frame as print or digital materials. For clarity sake, digital includes but is not limited to static, dynamic and interactive content.

These materials should meet or exceed the obligations of education providers as described in the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s “Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities.”

Timeline: Immediate.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.8.8: carried – definition of educational and training institution

The Committee added clarification to the wording in recommendation 27 (formerly recommendation 25):

The Committee proposes the following:

That the government consider including all organizations (public or private) that provide formal education and training in the requirements.

The Committee has asked the public what types of organizations should fall under the definition of formal, and provides this information to the government with this report in appendix C.

Timeline: Immediate.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.8.9: carried – accessibility in information communication tools and systems

The Committee added the category of deafblind to recommendation 30 (formerly recommendation 28):

The Committee proposes the following:

All obligated organizations which provide education or training on the design, production, innovation, maintenance or delivery of information and communication tools and systems shall include curricula that address the needs of all people with disabilities, including deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing people who use American Sign Language and langue des signes québécoise.

Timeline: One calendar year from effective date.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.8.10: carried – accessibility in provincially regulated professions

The Committee added an additional electronic reference to recommendation 31 (formerly recommendation 29):

Note: As a resource, the Committee refers to the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy on ableism and discrimination based on disability.

The Committee proposes the following:

Certification requirements of provincially regulated professions must include knowledge and application of accessibility (including accessible formats, language, communication and information technology support) and the prevention of attitudinal barriers. These should be worked into instructional planning and course design for organizations which provide education or training.

Timeline: One calendar year.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.8.11: carried – Education Standards

The Committee added specificity to the wording in recommendation 32 (formerly recommendation 30):

The Committee proposes the following:

If the government creates Education Standards with requirements that are equal to or greater than those requirements found in sections 15–18 of the regulation, including the result of recommendations 24–29 made in this report, these sections can be moved to the Education Standards.

If any elements of sections 15–18, including the result of recommendations 24–29 made in this report, are not reflected in newly created Education Standards (or within the jurisdiction of education standards development committees) for example application of standards to private schools and colleges—these requirements must be retained in the Information and Communications Standards.

The Committee’s intent is to make recommendations 24–29 related to sections 15–18, while allowing the government to house these requirements in the most logical place in the regulation.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.8.12: carried – Phase 2

The Committee made two changes to Phase 2 of the report (recommendation 33, formerly recommendation 31) including the addition of an explanatory infographic (with text description) and providing greater specificity to one of the Functional Accessibility Requirements:

Note: The infographics and additional materials (for example, long descriptions) will be submitted alongside this report.

Where text literacy is required for use:

at least one configuration must provide literacy supports or eliminate the demand for text literacy (for example, text-to-speech, pictorial representation)
at least one configuration must provide simple language (unless the purpose is to teach or test text literacy where a different level of literacy is required). Simple language means the literacy level of grade three

Vote passed.

Motion 9.8.13: carried – inclusion of explanatory paragraph

The Committee voted to include an additional explanatory paragraph, this does not constitute a new recommendation:

The Committee recognizes that due to the nature of the topic, complexity of technology, and keeping in line with simple and plain language this may not have been viewed as a priority at the beginning of the process. However, based on the feedback we have received and the knowledge we have gained through this process, the Committee recommends any further public communication of this report should be available in a simple language version.

Vote passed.

Motion 9.9: carried – final report

The Committee agrees that the recommendations in this report are finalized and approves the submission of this report to the Minister for Seniors and Accessibility, pending changes from meeting 9 and packaging by staff. The Chair will receive the final report from staff within two weeks and send it to members after his review. Members will have five days to make note of any errors.

In addition, the Chair has offered that members may reach out to him personally if they would like to recommend any specific language included in the Chair’s letter to the minister accompanying the report.

Vote passed.

M 9.10 – closing remarks

The Chair and ministry staff thanked the Committee for all their hard work and explained some of the next steps in the process. The Chair discussed the approach to be taken to any final edits to the report and sought feedback for content to be included in the final transmittal letter to the minister.

In addition, the Chair reaffirmed that he would resend his letter regarding unacceptable emergency outcomes and preparedness for persons with disabilities, sent to the previous minister.

Meeting 8: December 10 –11, 2018

Letter from chair to the minister

January 15, 2019

The Honourable Raymond Cho
Minister for Seniors and Accessibility (MSAA)
Mowat Block 6^th Floor, 900 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2E1

Dear Minister,

Re: Information and Communications Standards Review Meeting 8 – Minutes and Progress Report

On behalf of the members of the Information and Communications Standards Development Committee (the Committee), I am pleased to submit the Committee-approved minutes from Meeting 8 held on December 10^th & 11^th, 2018, and to provide you with a brief update on the Committee’s progress.

At meeting 8, the Committee completed the following deliverables:

The Committee concluded its Initial Recommendations Report for public posting, and once the plain language writer finalizes the agreed upon edits, the report will be submitted.

Sincerely,
Rich Donovan

Meeting information

Date: December 10–11, 2018

Location: Rosetti Room, Chelsea Hotel, 33 Gerrard Street, Toronto

Format of Committee Minutes and References: For the purposes of referencing Committee documents and items in the minutes: ‘M’ (Meeting) represents the meeting number/minute items/action items and ‘partial’ represents limited attendance.

Day 1 present

Voting Members: Rich Donovan (Chair), Kim Adeney (partial), David Berman, David Best, Jennifer Cowan, Pina D’Intino, Robert Gaunt, Gary Malkowski (partial), James Roots, Kevin Shaw, Jutta Treviranus, Diane Wagner (partial), Richard Watters. Absent: Louise Bray, Louie DiPalma, Chantal Perreault, Matthieu Vachon

Non-Voting Members: Kate Acs, Adam Haviaras (partial). Absent: Michelle Babin, Kathy McLachlan

Minister / Minister’s Office: Honourable Raymond Cho (partial), Michael Thomas (partial)

Ministry: Nuhaad Abbas, Selin Abdulovska, Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Emma Esselink, Marie-Lison Fougère (partial), Ann Hoy, Alex Ibrahim, Andrew McIntyre, Hayden Porch, Tamara Sopic, Casey Teixiera,

Support: Gemme Humenny – captionist, Jayne Jalonikou, Samira Kassem, Anna Lee, Liz McClounie, Jeannette Nicholson

Day 1 meeting minutes

M 8.1: Minister’s Remarks

The Honourable Raymond Cho, Minister for Seniors and Accessibility, greeted the Committee and made opening remarks.

M 8.2: Housekeeping

Staff took the Committee through a series of housekeeping items such as emergency procedures, roll call, and an overview of process in accordance with the day’s agenda.

M 8.3: Discussion of Miscellaneous Items

The Committee’s discussion concentrated on material changes or amendments proposed by members in advance of the meeting.

The Committee voted on each of the following issues to make material changes to recommendations already in the report and to add new sections and/or recommendations.

M 8.3.1: Reinforce Product Labeling

Recommendation

The Committee decided to change the timeline in the recommendation regarding accessible product labeling to provide; one year for Ontario to produce a report that sets a strategic direction on the recommendations above. If a report is not created by the Governments of Ontario and Canada by this time, then the recommendation is that Ontario develop a strategy to address this, including creating an expert Committee.

(Motion Carried)

M 8.3.2: Live Captioning

Recommendation

The Committee recommended adding the proviso that live captioning be subject to a high standard of quality equal to the CRTC’s standards for live captioning. In addition, the Committee recommends that live captioning requirements be built into organization’s multi-year accessibility planning requirements (where applicable).

(Motion Carried)

M 8.3.3: Procurement of Digital Goods and Services

Recommendation

The Committee broadened the scope of the explanatory paragraph accompanying the recommendation to refer the matter of strengthening non-digital procurement practices in the Ontario Public Service to the Accessibility Standards Advisory Committee and, in addition, all government bodies managing procurement practices.

(Motion Carried)

M 8.3.4: Procurement Terminology

Recommendation

The Committee recommended the inclusion of two terms in the Definitions Appendix to clarify the recommendation; Trusted Tester and Alternative Access Systems were added to the definition section. The definitions were supplied by the technical subcommittee.

(Motion Carried)

M 8.4: Discussion of Referral of Education Standards

The Committee discussed rephrasing recommendations 24-31 in the report related to the Information and Communication Standards pertaining to education.

M 8.4.1: Reorder Recommendation 24

Recommendation

The Committee voted to delete Recommendation 31 and move Recommendation 24 up to where Recommendation 31 formerly resided. In addition to reordering the recommendations, the Committee voted to change the language in the section to emphasize that the education standards proceed as standalone recommendations under the Information and Communications Standards. This is because the status of the Education Standard Development Committees is unknown and the Committee wanted to emphasize that the recommendations should proceed on their own unless another Committee develops something that is equal to, or greater than, the Committee’s Recommendations.

(Motion carried)

M 8.4.2: Preamble to Part 5 and the Deletion of Recommendation 31

Recommendation

The Committee discussed that Recommendation 31 did not serve much purpose and did not provide an actionable proposal for government. The recommendation was deleted from the report and replaced by Recommendation 24. However, the intent of the section was moved up to the preamble of Part 5 (Education Standards), which reads:

One of the topics that was brought to the Committee’s attention was the difficulty that education providers and students frequently have obtaining accessible resources. The Committee has heard that these resources are too often unsatisfactory, or delayed provision of these resources is resulting in poor learning outcomes for students with disabilities. Based on these observations, the Committee recommends the following:

(Motion Carried)

M 8.4.3: Purchase of Accessible Education Materials

Recommendation

The Committee decided to add a reference to educational providers having the obligation to meet or exceed the obligations espoused in the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy on Accessible Education for Students with Disabilities. In addition, language was modified to reflect the fact that all education related recommendations are no longer being referred to an Education Standard Development Committee. They will be recommendations to government instead. In the process the timeline was adjusted to immediate.

(Motion Carried)

M 8.4.4: Definition of Formal Education or Training

Recommendation

The Committee amended Recommendation 26 (now 25) to emphasize that training requirements apply in both public and private educational settings. The Committee also indicated that they wanted to ask the public, when the report is posted, what they think the definition of ‘formal training’ should encompass. In addition, language was modified to reflect the fact that all education related recommendations are no longer being referred to an Education Standard Development Committee. They will be recommendations to government instead. In the process the timeline was adjusted to immediate.

(Motion Carried)

M 8.4.5: Accessibility in Education

Recommendation

The language in Recommendation 28 (now 27) was modified to reflect the fact that all education related recommendations are no longer being referred to an Education Standard Development Committee. They will be recommendations to government instead. In the process the timeline was adjusted to immediate.

(Motion Carried)

M 8.5: Phase II

M 8.5.1: Compliance Section

Recommendation

The Committee discussed and included language on Compliance and how it would work under the new proposed Phase II framework.

(Motion Carried)

Day 2 present

Voting Members: Rich Donovan (Chair - partial), Kim Adeney (partial), David Berman, David Best, Louise Bray, Jennifer Cowan, Pina D’Intino, Rich Donovan (partial), Gary Malkowski, James Roots, Kevin Shaw, Jutta Treviranus, Diane Wagner, Richard Watters. Absent: Louie DiPalma, Robert Gaunt, Chantal Perreault, Matthieu Vachon

Non-Voting Members: Kate Acs, Michele Babin, Adam Haviaras (partial). Absent: Kathy McLachlan

Ministry: Nuhaad Abbas, Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Sonya Del Monte, Emma Esselink, Ann Hoy (partial), Andrew McIntyre, Hayden Porch, Tamara Sopic, Casey Teixeira

Support: Gemme Humenny – captionist, Jayne Jalonikou, Samira Kassem, Carolyn Lesonsky, Jeannette Nicholson

Day 2 meeting minutes

M 8.5: Phase 2 –Report Discussion

The Committee began the second day of Meeting 8 by resuming the conversation on Phase II.

M 8.5.2: Amendment to Functional Accessibility Requirements (FAR) in Appendix B

Recommendation

Appendix B was amended by adding visual perception or processing and auditory processing at the end of the two lines that follow:

(Motion Carried)

M 8.5.3: Amendment to FAR in Appendix B (Part 2)

Recommendation

The Committee changed the language in the following technical requirement in Appendix B from “plain language” to “simple language” as noted below:

(Motion Carried)

M 8.5.4: Clarify Qualifying Methods

Recommendation

The Committee discussed including a line in Phase II that clarified the fact that the function requirements do not replace technical requirements but specify what they are trying to achieve.

(Motion Carried)

M 8.5.5: Phase II Recommendation

Recommendation

The Committee discussed how best to phrase a recommendation on Phase II and proposed the following recommendation:

The Committee proposes:

(Motion Carried)

M 8.5.6: Explanatory Note in Introduction

Recommendation

The Committee recognized that the report may be difficult to understand considering the presence of Phase 1 and Phase II and decided to add the following paragraph at the beginning of the report to provide explanation to the reader as to how best to interpret the report.

To be clear, the intent of Phase 1 is to make immediate improvements to the current regulatory approach to accessibility in Ontario, and the intent of Phase 2 is to transform and modernize it. Organizations working to implement the current regulatory requirements, including changes from Phase 1, would have certainty that they would have a smooth transition to Phase 2 as part of this transformation.

(Motion Carried)

M 8.6: Final Review

M 8.6.1: Trusted Tester and Alternative Access System

Recommendation

The Committee voted to clarify two terms in Recommendation 14; Trusted Tester and Alternative Access Systems.

(Motion Carried)

M 8.6.2: Including Examples of Incentives and Disincentives

Recommendation

The Committee voted to add the example of “public recognition of success” to the possible incentives to rewarding compliance and the example of “naming non-compliant organizations using social media” to the disincentives section.

(Motion Carried)

M 8.7: Vote to Finalize the Initial Recommendations Report

The Committee voted to finalize all the recommendations in the Initial Recommendations Report as a whole.

(Motion Carried)

M 8.8: Discussion of Public Posting Process

Staff took the Committee through a presentation of next steps of the Standards Development Process.

M 8.9: Public Posting Questions

The Committee concluded the meeting by proposing questions to solicit feedback from the public on points of interest.

Reviewed, revised and voted on a series of issues as part of the Initial Recommendations in Phase I;
Developed a section on compliance for Phase II and a new recommendation for moving ahead with Phase II;
Re-examined the long-term objective and voted to keep the same language;
Voted to approve the entire Initial Recommendations Report (in principle, subject to minor edits and changes by the plain language writer and subject to the Chair’s final approval) for public posting; and
Discussed the public posting process and proposed questions to help solicit feedback from the public.
visual presentation must be adjustable to support limited vision and/or visual perception or processing (magnification, contrast, spacing, visual emphasis, layout)
audio presentation must be adjustable to support limited hearing and/or auditory processing (volume, reduced background noise)
at least one configuration must provide simple language (unless the purpose is to teach or test text literacy where a different level of literacy is required)
That the Government adopt and operationalize Phase 2 as the regulatory approach to accessibility in Ontario. The Committee is aware that this approach will continue to evolve. The intent of the Committee is to have Phase 1 implemented in parallel with Phase 2. Phase 1 should occur during the transition to Phase 2.
Timeline: Two years from submission of the final recommendations for Phase 2 to be fully implemented.

Meeting 7: January 31 & February 1, 2018

Letter from chair to the minister

March 1, 2018

The Honourable Tracy MacCharles
Minister Responsible f or Accessibility
Mowat Block 6^th Floor, 900 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2E1

Dear Minister,

Re: Information and Communications Standards Review Meeting 7 – Minutes and Progress Report

On behalf of the members of the Information and Communications (IC) Standards Development Committee (the Committee), I am pleased to submit the Committee-approved minutes from Meeting 7 held on January 31 & February 1, 2018, and to provide you with a brief update on the Committee’s progress.

At meeting 7, the Committee completed the following deliverables:

Reviewed and finalized the intent of all 29 initial recommendations in Chapter 1.
Voted on three education-related recommendations to be referred to the Education SDC:
- to require not only publicly funded K-12 and Post-secondary educational or training institutions, but all organizations that provide formal training and education to comply with accessibility requirements
- development of more training programs to increase the number of captionists and descriptionists available
- to include requirements for buying accessible teaching/training materials
Discussed the three key components of Phase 2 (Chapter 2) and shared the feedback they received from their consultations.
Voted to give authority to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Division and the Digital Inclusion Technical Committee to complete Chapter 2 for SDC consideration for the next meeting scheduled on March 21 & 22, 2018.
Re-examined the long-term objective and voted to change the current long-term objective.

Prior to Meeting 8, the Committee will receive a completed draft initial recommendations report containing Chapter 1, 2 and appendixes in plain language to review and approve. The Committee will vote on a final draft of initial recommendations for public posting at Meeting 8 scheduled for March 21 and 22, 2018.

Sincerely,
Rich Donovan

Meeting information

Date: January 31 – February 1, 2018

Location: Churchill Room, Chelsea Hotel, 33 Gerrard Street, Toronto

Day 1 present

Standards Development Committee Members: Rich Donovan (Chair), Kim Adeney, David Berman (via teleconference), David Best, Louise Bray, Jennifer Cowen, Pina D’Intino (afternoon only), Robert Gaunt, Gary Malkowski, Chantal Perreault, James Roots, Kevin Shaw, Jutta Treviranus, Diane Wagner, Richard Watters

Non-voting Standards Development Committee Members: Kate Acs, Michele Babin, Kathy McLachlan

Supporting Staff: (Accessibility Directorate of Ontario), Ann Hoy, Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Ryan Nichols (partial), Hayden Porch, Heather Ingram, Casey Teixeira, Dana Eilath (partial), Meridith St. Pierre, Kimberly Campos, Dalveer Birk, Nidhi Bhagat

Interpreters: Gloria Brifoglio, Shelia Johnston, Carolyn Lesonsky

Captionist: Gemme Humenny

Regrets: Louie DiPalma, Mattieu Vachon, Adam Haviaras

Day 1 meeting minutes

M 7.1: Phase 1 – Initial Recommendation Report

The Committee’s discussion concentrated on material changes that would only add clarity to the intent of the recommendation as the report will be passed to a third party to be plain languaged after Meeting 7.

M 7.2 –Material Changes to Recommendations for Sections 9, 12, 14 and 10.

The Committee voted on the following material changes to existing recommendations:

Motion 7.2.1: Disagreement between People with Disabilities and Organizations

Recommendation Language:

The Committee recommended an immediate timeline for referring the issue of a lack of mechanism to address disagreement between organizations and persons with disabilities in any section of the IASR to the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council (ASAC) for action following the submission of the Final Proposed Recommendations.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 7.2.2: Determination of Suitability

Recommendation Language:

The Committee recommended the timeline be changed to immediately, effective 6 months after the change.

The Committee decided that it would be best for the Technical Subcommittee to provide a document outlining the properties of a conversion-ready document as an appendix to the report.

Motion 7.2.3: Harmonization and Application Across Requirements

Recommendation Language:

The Committee recommended to move recommendation 18 to the location of recommendation 13, and for the recommendation (currently 13) to be harmonized with the language of recommendation 18.

(Motion carried)

Motion 7.2.4: Procurement

Recommendation Language:

The Committee recommended changing the language of recommendation 14:

The Government of Ontario and Designated Public Sector Organizations shall incorporate accessibility design, criteria and features when procuring or acquiring goods, services or facilities, which have requirements under the Information and Communications Standards (including any changes from the review).

The Committee recommended adding this recommendation to the general accessible procurement requirements in Section 5 of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulations, and to include technical requirements including accepted methods of determining accessible products and services such as a trusted tester, manual and automated testing rather than automated alone and interoperability with alternative access systems. This would include sign language and other communication modalities and the requirement to procure accessible authoring and developing tools.

The reference criteria for authoring tools would be Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 (A & B).

The Committee recommended a timeline of January 1, 2021for this recommendation.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 7.2.5: Differentiating Organizations

Recommendation Language:

The Committee voted that a definition for ‘high impact’ organizations which must comply with the Information and Communications Standards and report under the AODA should be created and recommended to change the language of the recommendation about the province engaging in consultation with businesses and the federal government to regulate organizations that are not under provincial jurisdiction or have no employees in Ontario.

(Motion carried)

Motion 7.2.6: Significant Refresh

Recommendation Language:

The Committee voted to add the term “refresh”.

(Motion carried)

Motion 7.2.7: Mobile Applications & New Technologies

Recommendation Language:

The Committee voted to add “other technologies.”

(Motion carried)

Motion 7.2.8: Extranets Exemption

Recommendation Language:

The Committee voted to describe public-facing websites with a log-in as previously referred to as extranets and added that these types of websites should comply with the current regulation rather than be WCAG 2.0AA compliant.

(Motion carried)

Motion 7.2.9: Intranets Exemption

Recommendation Language:

The Committee voted to describe employee-facing websites and content as previously referred to as intranets and that these types of websites should comply with the current regulation rather than be WCAG 2.0AA compliant.

The exemption should be removed immediately. New employee-facing websites should comply by January 1, 2021, and all employee-facing websites should comply by January 1, 2023.

(Motion carried)

Motion 7.2.10: Pre-2012 Exemption

Recommendation Language:

The Committee voted to replace the Pre-2012 exemption in section 14 of the IASR with a new category to be created later for archived content modelled after (localized to Ontario) the federal Treasury Board archived content policy.

(Motion carried)

Motion 7.2.11: Live Captioning and Audio Description

Recommendation Language:

The Committee recommended that instead of waiting for the next IC SDC to evaluate if the technology has advanced sufficiently to accelerate the compliance timeline, the government should explore and monitor (starting 6 months after adoption) technologies and resources available for live captioning and audio descriptions.

(Motion carried)

Motion 7.2.12: Web Hosting Location

Recommendation Language:

The Committee recommended to change from “where their websites are hosted outside” to “no matter where their webservers are located.”

(Motion carried)

M 7.3: Information and Communications Education Related Recommendations

The Committee voted on education-related recommendations that they did not have time to vote on at the last meeting. These recommendations in the below will be referred to the education SDC.

Motion 7.3.1: Definition of Educational and Training Institutions

Recommendation Language:

The Committee recommends that the Education SDC should consider including all organizations that provide formal education and training in the requirements, and not only publicly funded K-12 and Post-Secondary educational or training institutions.

(Motion carried)

Motion 7.3.2: Increasing Captionist Capacity

Recommendation Language:

The Committee recommended that the Government of Ontario should explore, in partnership with post-secondary institutions, employers and apprenticeship bodies, the development of training programs, including at the post-secondary level, for training in the field of captionists and descriptionists.

(Motion carried)

Motion 7.3.3: Buying Accessible Teaching/Training Materials

Recommendation Language:

The Committee recommended that the Education SDC should consider requiring obligated organizations that are educational or training institutions to order text books or other printed curricula materials solely from producers who agree to provide accessible conversion-ready versions in the same time frame as print copies.

(Motion carried)

Motion 7.3.4: Accessibility in Education

Recommendation Language:

The Committee recommended that the Education SDC’s should explore ways to include accessibility, specifically e-accessibility, education and skills development in curricula (at the early years, elementary, secondary and post-secondary levels).

(Motion carried)

Day 2 present

Standards Development Committee Members: Rich Donovan (Chair), Kim Adeney, David Berman (via teleconference), David Best, Louise Bray, Jennifer Cowen, Pina D’Intino, Robert Gaunt, Gary Malkowski (in person in the morning and via teleconference in the afternoon), Chantal Perreault, James Roots, Kevin Shaw, Jutta Treviranus, Diane Wagner, Richard Watters

Non-voting Standards Development Committee Members: Kate Acs, Michele Babin, Kathy McLachlan

Supporting Staff: (Accessibility Directorate of Ontario), Ann Hoy, Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Hayden Porch, Heather Ingram, Casey Teixeira, Meridith St. Pierre, Kimberly Campos, Dalveer Birk, Nidhi Bhagat

Interpreters: Gloria Brifoglio, Shelia Johnston, Carolyn Lesonsky

Captionist: Gemme Humenny

Regrets: Louie DiPalma, Mattieu Vachon, Adam Haviaras

Day 2 meeting minutes

M 7.4: Phase 2 –Report Discussion

The Committee discussed the three key components of Phase 2.

Motion 7.4.1: Action Items

Vote Language:

The Committee recommended that the Digital Technical Subcommittee, with support from the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Division, write Phase 2 into the second chapter of the Initial Recommendations Report. In addition, the Committee recommended a number of action items for Phase 2:

Trusted Authority – Minister to consider having the Trusted Authority report directly to the Legislative Assembly.
Phase 2 to be implemented with a transition period between Phase 1 and Phase 2

(Motion carried)

M 7.5: Re-examining Long-Term Objectives

Committee members were asked previously to consider modifications that could be made to the original Long-Term Objectives, and to bring suggestions forward during the discussion. Proposed modifications were shared well in advance and other long-term objectives in other jurisdictions were also compared and discussed at the meeting.

Motion 7.1: Long-Term Objectives Vote

Recommendation Language:

The Committee recommended to change the current Long-Term Objective to that people with disabilities be able to participate fully and equally in the creation and use of information and communications.

(Motion carried)

Meeting 6: December 13 and 14, 2017

Meeting Information

Date: December 13 & 14, 2017

Location: Wren Room, Chelsea Hotel, 33 Gerrard Street West, Toronto

Format of Committee Minutes and References: For the purposes of referencing Committee documents and items in the minutes: ‘M’ (Meeting) represents the meeting number/minute items/sections/action items and ‘partial’ represents limited attendance.

Day 1 present

Standards Development Committee Members: Rich Donovan (Chair), Kim Adeney, David Berman, David Best, Louise Bray, Jennifer Cowan, Pina D’Intino, Robert Gaunt, Gary Malkowski, Chantal Perreault, James Roots, Kevin Shaw, Jutta Treviranus, Diane Wagner, Richard Watters

Non-voting Standards Development Committee Members: Kate Acs, Michele Babin, Adam Haviaras, Kathy McLachlan

Supporting Staff: (Accessibility Directorate of Ontario) Neuza Barcelos (partial), Mary Bartolomucci (partial), Susannah Bush, Kimberly Campos, Ann Hoy (partial), Heather Ingram, Hayden Porch, Meridith St. Pierre, Casey Teixeira

Interpreters: Gloria Brifoglio, Shelia Johnston, Sean Power

Captionist: Marlene Finnegan

Regrets: Louie DiPalma, Mattieu Vachon

Day 1 meeting minutes

M 6.1 Phase 2 – Executive Summary Discussion

Rich Donovan and Jutta Treviranus facilitated a discussion to refine the Executive Summary supporting Phase 2 and ensure all Committee members were comfortable consulting with their respective communities on the Executive Summary prior to Meeting 7 on January 31 & February 1, 2018.

Rich Donovan inititated voting on the following item:

Motion 6.1.1: Consultation on Executive Summary

Vote Language: The Committee will consult on the Executive Summary of Phase 2, with changes discussed during the meeting, prior to Meeting 7. The changes will be made by the Subcommittee lead with the assistance of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Division (AODD).

(Motion Carried)

M 6.2 Phase 1 - Sections 9, 12, 14 and 19: Recommendation Development and Conclusion

Rich Donovan inititated voting on the following items:

Motion 6.2.1: New Technologies

Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends the definition of website be aligned with international examples (e.g. US Access Board and EU) which include mobile applications and interfaces.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 6.2.2: Web Hosting Location

Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends that Section 14 apply to obligated organizations regardless of the physical location (e.g., outside of Ontario) of web hosting services.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 6.2.3: Products and Product Labels

Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends Ontario meet with the Government of Canada to study solutions for the issue of accessibility of products and product labels, which may include clarifying jurisdictional authority over different products. In addition, it is recommended that Ontario consult with various industries to explore non-regulatory solutions to this issue.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 6.2.4: On-Demand Conversion Ready Formats

Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends that the Government of Ontario and Legislative Assembly be required to provide a conversion-ready digital format of public facing materials on-demand rather than upon request. For clarity,

‘On-demand’ in this case would mean immediately, and imply proactive production.

‘Conversion-ready digital format’ means a format which has the properties it needs to be readily converted into an accessible format.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 6.2.5: On-Demand ASL and LSQ Translations

Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends that the Government of Ontario convene a meeting of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Stakeholders to determine which materials should be provided in ASL and LSQ translation on-demand. The Committee recommends that once this is done, these materials be available on-demand.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 6.2.6: Disagreement Between People with Disabilities and Organizations

Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends referring to ASAC the issue of a lack of mechanism to address disagreement between organizations and persons with disabilities in any section of the IASR.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 6.2.7: Public Libraries

Recommendation Language: The Committee has reviewed and consulted on Section 19 – public libraries, and recommends no changes to this section.

(Motion Carried)

Day 2 present

Non-voting Standards Development Committee Members: Kate Acs, Michele Babin, Kathy McLachlan, Adam Haviaras (partial)

Supporting Staff: (Accessibility Directorate of Ontario) Neuza Barcelos (partial), Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Kimberly Campos, Heather Ingram, Hayden Porch, Casey Teixeira

Interpreters: Gloria Brifoglio, Shelia Johnston, Sean Power

Captionist: Olivia Arnaud

Regrets: Louie DiPalma, Mattieu Vachon

Day 2 meeting minutes

M 6.2 Phase 1 - Sections 9, 12, 14 and 19: Recommendation Development and Conclusion

Rich Donovan inititated voting on the following items:

Motion 6.2.8: Extranet Exemption

Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends that the exemption for public-facing websites with a log-in (extranets) be removed and these websites be required to be WCAG 2.0AA compliant.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 6.2.9: Intranet Exemption

Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends that the exemption for employee-facing websites and web content (intranets) be removed and these websites be required to be WCAG 2.0AA compliant.

(Motion Carried)

M 6.3 Parking Lot: Emergency Management Presentation

Guest presentation from Chris Pittens, The Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management

Motion 6.3.1: Unacceptable Emergency Outcomes and Preparedness

Recommendation Language: The Committee strongly recommends that disability and accessibility be put front and centre in the upcoming review of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (EMCPA). For clarity, it is asked that the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services involve people with disabilities in the review, including the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council. The same process should occur when the Fire Code is next reviewed.

(Motion Carried)

M 6.4 Parking Lot: Discussion of Sections 15-18: Educational Institutions (and libraries of)

Discussion facilitated by Rich Donovan to collect SDC concerns related to Sections 15-18, and vote to convey the summary of this advice to the Education SDCs.

Motion 6.4.1: General Referall of Education Requirements to Education SDCs

Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends that Sections 15-18 of the IASR, related to Education, be referred to the upcoming Education SDCs along with advice from the IC SDC’s discussions on these Sections. This advice is in two forms:

Discussions which the SDC had but on which they did not vote; and

Dicusssion which resulted in the development of recommendations that were voted on.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 6.4.2: Accessibility in Information and Communications Tools and Systems

Recommendation Language: All obligated organizations which provide education or training on the design, production, innovation, maintenance or delivery of information and communication tools and systems shall include curricula that address information and communications needs of persons with disabilities, including Deaf or hard of hearing people who use ASL and LSQ.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 6.4.3: Accessibility in Provincially Regulated Professions

Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends that the certification requirements of provincially regulated professions include knowledge and application of accessibility (including accessible formats, language, communication and IT support) and the prevention of attitudinal barriers including instructional planning and course design for organizations which provide education or training.

(Motion Carried)

Meeting 5: October 25 and 26, 2017

Letter from chair to the minister

November 24, 2017

The Honourable Tracy MacCharles
Minister Responsible for Accessibility
Mowat Block 6^th Floor, 900 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2E1

Dear Minister,

Re: Information and Communications Standards Review Meeting 5 – Minutes and Progress Report

On behalf of the members of the Information and Communications (IC) Standards Development Committee (the Committee), I am pleased to submit the Committee-approved minutes from Meeting 5 held on October 25 and 26, 2017, and to provide you with a brief update on the Committee’s progress.

At meeting 5, the Committee completed the following key deliverables:

Discussed and voted on 8 recommendations from the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee related to Section 14 (accessible websites and web content), including recommendations that would bring clarity to existing requirements and address perceived gaps in the regulation (Phase 1 advice).
Reviewed further advice from the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee regarding Section 14, including a more complex policy proposal that requires further discussion and policy analysis. Elements of this policy proposal would include the following: building an accessibility ecosystem using functional requirements-based regulation, creating a trusted regulatory authority, and relying on a curated open repository of tools, resources, and training to support compliance (Phase 2 advice).

The Committee has nearly completed voting on Phase 1 recommendations related to Section 14 (e.g. significant refresh, practicability, etc.). The remaining items from Section 14 will be discussed and voted upon at Meeting 6 on December 13 and 14, along with remaining items from Sections 9-13 (e.g., accessible formats and communications supports, emergency process, etc.), and Sections 15-19 (i.e., requirements for educational and training institutions and libraries). Meeting 6 is intended to provide the opportunity for the Committee to conclude its discussion on Phase 2 advice, and vote to finalize an overview that can be used as the basis for public comment.

Prior to Meeting 6, the Committee has indicated that members will take back discussion questions related to Phase 2 advice from the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee for feedback from their communities.

Sincerely,

(Original signed by)

Rich Donovan
Chair, Information and Communications Standards Development Committee

Meeting information

Date: October 25 and 26, 2017

Location: Wren Room, Chelsea Hotel, 33 Gerrard Street West, Toronto

Format of Committee Minutes and References: For the purposes of referencing Committee documents and items in the minutes: ‘M’ (Meeting) represents the meeting number/minute items/sections/action items and ‘partial’ represents limited attendance.

Day 1 present

Standards Development Committee Members: Rich Donovan (Chair) (partial), Kim Adeney, David Berman (partial), David Best, Louise Bray, Jennifer Cowan, Pina D’Intino, Robert Gaunt, Gary Malkowski (partial), Chantal Perreault, Kevin Shaw, Jutta Treviranus (acting facilitator), Diane Wagner, Richard Watters

Non-voting Standards Development Committee Members: Kate Acs, Michele Babin, Kathy McLachlan

Supporting Staff: (Accessibility Directorate of Ontario) Neuza Barcellos, Mary Bartolomucci (partial), Susannah Bush, Kimberly Campos, Heather Ingram, Hayden Porch, Meridith St. Pierre, Casey Teixeira, Harry Edmundson-Cornell

Interpreters: Gloria Brifoglio, Shelia Johnston, Sean Power

Captionist: Gemme Hummeney

Regrets: Louie DiPalma, James Roots, Mattieu Vachon , Adam Haviaras (non-voting)

Resignation: Ben Williamson

Day 1 meeting minutes

M 5.1 Chair’s Welcome and Accessibility Directorate Updates

Jutta Treviranus provided welcoming remarks to the Committee on behalf of the Chair, Rich Donovan, including an outline of the agenda for the day and news that Ben Williamson has resigned from the Information and Communications Standards Development Committee. The Accessibility Directorate provided an overview of progress to date and a look ahead to Meeting 6.

M 5.2 Section 14 – Discussion of Phase 1 Recommendations

Jutta Treviranus facilitated discussion on recommendations from the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee related to Section 14: Accessible websites and web content (Phase 1 advice), supported by Hayden Porch and Heather Ingram.

M 5.3 Section 14 – Discussion and voting on Phase 1 Recommendations

Rich Donovan initiated voting on the following items:

Motion 5.3.1: Harmonization and Application Across Requirements

Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends that it be made clear that Section 14 applies to all sections of the IASR. This could be communicated as a reference to Section 14 wherever websites are directly referenced in the IASR, non-regulatory guidance and / or guidance in the General Requirements section.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 5.3.2: Final Review of Legislative Language

Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends that Government use the technical expertise of the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee as a resource, as needed, to clarify intent and technical accuracy during the regulatory drafting stage related to Section 14.

(Motion carried)

Motion 5.3.3: Procurement

Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends that Section 14 include a strong accessible procurement requirement. It should take into account the lessons learned from other jurisdictions. This includes the accepted methods of determining accessible products and services such as a trusted tester, manual and automated testing rather than automated alone and interoperability with alternative access systems. This would include sign language and other communication modalities.

This would also include the requirement to procure accessible authoring and development tools on a go forward basis. The reference criteria for authoring tools would be ATAG 2.0 (A&B). This recommendation will include any other recommendations regarding Section 14.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 5.3.4: Differentiating Organizations

Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends to include the high-impact metric alongside the 'number of employees' metric for those organizations under Ontario jurisdiction.

The Committee suggests the following as a possible definition: A “high-impact organization” is one that meets all of the following criteria:

1 million or more Ontario users (free or paid), $10 million or more in yearly global revenues, 1 or more Ontario employees
For those areas not under Ontario jurisdiction (e.g. federal jurisdiction), the Committee recommends that the province engage in consultation to determine mechanisms to regulate organizations selling in Ontario with no/few employees in Canada/Ontario with the intent to harmonize with, for example, the federal government.
(Motion Carried)
Motion 5.3.5: Significant Refresh
Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends that anything an obligated organization changes, updates or refreshes on a web site must be accessible. Only the function and/or content which is changed, updated or refreshed must be accessible but it should be recommended that organizations take the opportunity to make all web content accessible. The Committee recommends adding to the current guidance that content can include all functions, interaction and ‘branding’ (look and feel) for a site. It is recommended that examples be added to the guidance documentation.
(Motion Carried)
Motion 5.3.6: Practicability
Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends clarifying and making more stringent the application of “not practicable” in line with undue hardship (as defined by the OHRC). The intent is not to weaken the provision related to availability of commercial software - clarity would be in addition to the existing definition.
(Motion Carried)
Motion 5.3.7: 17. Pre-2012 Exemption
Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends adding a notion of archived content that incorporates the date of 2012 – modelled after (and localized to Ontario) the federal Treasury Board archived content policy.
This notion would apply to non-active documents, so anything that required input or will change, for example forms (even static ones, but are current and used for gathering information), will not be covered under this exemption (this is an exemption to 2021 requirements).
The Committee recommends this notion be reviewed in subsequent reviews of the IC Standards.
The Committee also recommends that pre-2012 images used for navigation in refreshed websites be made accessible (e.g. a pre-2012 jpeg image used for navigation on a site refreshed in 2017 must have appropriate alt text).
(Motion Carried)
Motion 5.3.8: Live Captioning and Audio Description
Recommendation Language: The Committee recommends that by 2025 the exemptions for WCAG 2.0 success criteria 1.2.4 and 1.2.5 be removed, and that the infrastructure to support live captioning and audio descriptions will be pre-planned by obligated organizations. It is also recommended that the next IC SDC evaluate if technology has advanced sufficiently to accelerate this timeline.
(Motion Carried)

M 5.4 Wrap-Up/Recap

Heather Ingram and Hayden Porch provided an update related to the review of Sections 15-19 (i.e., requirements for educational and training institutions and libraries) to be discussed further at Meeting 6, and provided a status update on government’s commitment to an accessibility standard in education. Rich Donovan provided wrap-up remarks, including a recap of the afternoon’s votes and a view of the next day’s meeting.

Day 2 present

Standards Development Committee Members: Kim Adeney, David Best, Louise Bray, Jennifer Cowan (partial), Pina D’Intino, Robert Gaunt, Gary Malkowski (partial), Chantal Perreault, Kevin Shaw, Jutta Treviranus (acting facilitator), Diane Wagner, Richard Watters

Non-voting Standards Development Committee Members: Kate Acs, Michele Babin, Adam Haviaras, Kathy McLachlan

Supporting Staff: (Accessibility Directorate of Ontario) Neuza Barcellos, Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Kimberly Campos, Ann Hoy (partial), Heather Ingram, Hayden Porch, Meridith St. Pierre, Casey Teixeira, Harry Edmundson-Cornell

Guests: Marie-Lison Fougère, Hillary Hartley, Matthew Gray, Ann Jackson, Simonida Simonovic, Christopher Sutton, Amy Swenson

Interpreters: Gloria Brifoglio, Shelia Johnston, Sean Power

Captionist: Gemme Hummeney

Regrets: Rich Donovan (Chair), David Berman, Louie DiPalma, James Roots, Mattieu Vachon

Day 2 meeting minutes

M 5.5 Welcome

Jutta Treviranus provided welcoming remarks to the Committee on behalf of the Chair, Rich Donovan.

M 5.6 Presentation – Digital Government

Hillary Hartley, Chief Digital Officer and Deputy Minister and Amy Swenson, Assistant Director presented on Digital Inclusion and the Digital Service Standard.

M 5.7 Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee - Phase 2 Report and Findings

Hayden Porch outlined the agenda for the day, including the approach to the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee’s Phase 2 advice and recommendations.

Jutta Treviranus presented the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee’s Phase 2 advice regarding Section 14: Accessible websites and web content. The Committee engaged in a question and answer session and agreed to consult with their communities on this advice prior to Meeting 6.

M 5.8 Section 14 – Discussion of Phase 1 Recommendations

Hayden Porch and Heather Ingram facilitated discussion on recommendations from the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee related to Section 14: Accessible websites and web content (Phase 1 advice), supported by Jutta Treviranus.

M 5.9 Wrap-Up/Recap

Jutta Treviranus provided a recap of the day and an overview of expectations prior to the next meeting.

Meeting 4: September 13 & 14, 2017

Letter from chair to the minister

October 10, 2017

The Honourable Tracy MacCharles
Minister Responsible for Accessibility
Mowat Block 6^th Floor, 900 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2E1

Dear Minister,

Re: Information and Communications Standards Review Meeting 4 – Minutes and Progress Report

On behalf of the members of the Information and Communications (IC) Standards Development Committee (the Committee), I am pleased to submit the Committee-approved minutes from Meeting 4 held on September 13 & 14, 2017, and to provide you with a brief update on the Committee’s progress.

At meeting 4, the Committee completed the following key deliverables:

voted to request to extend the workplan by four months to ensure the quality and completeness of its advice
voted on a number of recommendations for Sections 9-13 of the IC Standards (i.e., feedback, accessible formats and communications supports, emergency process etc.)
reviewed advice from the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee regarding Section 14 of the IC Standards (i.e., Accessible websites and web content)

The Committee has nearly completed voting on Sections 9-13 of the IC Standards (i.e., feedback, accessible formats and communications supports, emergency process etc.) For the remaining items in Sections 9-13 as well as 15-19 of the IC Standards (i.e., requirements for educational and training institutions and libraries), the Committee has requested further information from the Accessibility Directorate and has decided to defer voting to ensure informed decision making.

Prior to Meeting 5 in October, the Committee has indicated that members will discuss action items related to Section 14, including advice provided by the Subcommittee, with their communities. Looking ahead to Meeting 5, the Committee will initiate voting on any proposed recommendations related to Section 14, and review the final advice from the Technical Subcommittee.

Sincerely,

(Original signed by)

Rich Donovan
Chair, Information and Communications Standards Development Committee

Meeting information

Date: September 13 & 14, 2017

Location: Rosetti Room, Chelsea Hotel, 33 Gerrard Street West, Toronto

Format of Committee Minutes and References: For the purposes of referencing Committee documents and items in the minutes: ‘M’ (Meeting) represents the meeting number/minute items/sections/action items and ‘Partial’ represents limited attendance.

Day 1 present

Non-voting Standards Development Committee Members: Michele Babin, Kathy McLachlan

Supporting Staff: Neuza Barcellos, Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Kimberly Campos, Ann Hoy (partial), Geordie Gibbon (partial), Heather Ingram, Ryan Nichols, Hayden Porch, Alfred Spencer (partial), Christopher Sutton, Wojciech Wrobel

Guests: Aidan Tierney (partial), George Zamfir (partial), Tyler Cox (partial)

Interpreters: Gloria Brifoglio, Shelia Johnston, Carolyn Lesonsky

Captionist: Deana Santedicola

Regrets: Kate Acs (non-voting), Adam Haviaras (non-voting), Ben Williamson

Day 1 meeting minutes

M 4.1 Chair’s Welcome and Update

Rich Donovan provided welcoming remarks to the Committee and outlined the agenda for the day.

M 4.2 Review Workplan and Housekeeping

Rich Donovan announced that Louie DiPalma from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce will be joining the Committee as a business representative replacing Jessica Gabriel.

Rich Donovan facilitated a discussion regarding the request from the AODA Alliance and Arch Disability Law Centre to make a presentation to the Committee. The Committee voted on this item as outlined below:

Motion 4.2.1: AODA Alliance and Arch Disability Law Centre Presentation

Recommendation: The Committee recommends that the SDC respond to the AODA Alliance and Arch Disability Law Centre’s request to provide a presentation in a way consistent to the employment and transportation SDCs. The Committee would like both organizations to be invited at a later time to present to the Committee when public feedback is received.

(Motion Carried)

Rich Donovan facilitated a discussion regarding a potential extension to the Committee’s workplan of four months, to enable the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee to fully develop its proposal. The Committee voted on this item as outlined below:

Motion 4.2.2: Workplan Extension

Recommendation: Accept the new draft workplan that adds 3-4 months to the meeting schedule and to submit the report in March 2018.

(Motion Carried)

M 4.3 Process for Recommendation Development

Hayden Porch gave a presentation outlining a suggested template for recommendation development using an example from the Transportation Standards Development Committee.

M 4.4 Public Outreach and Education – Stakeholder Feedback Presentation

Geordie Gibbon gave a presentation outlining feedback from municipalities regarding challenges in complying with Section 14: Accessible websites and web content.

M 4.5 Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee – Advice on Section 14

Jutta Treviranus presented the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee’s advice regarding Section 14: Accessible websites and web content. The Committee agreed to consult with their communities on this advice prior to Meeting 5 in October.

M 4.6 Wrap-Up/Recap

Rich Donovan provided a recap of the day and a brief overview of the next day’s agenda.

Day 2 present

Non-voting Standards Development Committee Members: Michele Babin, Adam Haviaras, Kathy McLachlan

Supporting Staff: Neuza Barcellos, Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Kimberly Campos, Heather Ingram, Ryan Nichols, Hayden Porch, Christopher Sutton, Alex Tapp (partial), Wojciech Wrobel

Interpreters:Gloria Brifoglio, Shelia Johnston, Carolyn Lesonsky

Captionist:Deana Santedicola

Regrets: Kate Acs (non-voting), Ben Williamson

Day 2 meeting minutes

M 4.7 Chair’s Welcome

Rich Donovan provided welcoming remarks to the Committee and outlined the agenda for the day.

M 4.8 Sections 9-13 – Discussion and Voting on Recommendation(s)

Hayden Porch facilitated a discussion to support the development of recommendations for requirements in Sections 9-13. Rich Donovan initiated voting on the following items:

Motion 4.8.1: Determination of Suitability

Recommendation: Change the regulation 12.(2) to state that “The obligated organization shall consult with the person making the request and gain agreement in determining the suitability of an accessible format or communication support.”

(Motion Carried)

Motion 4.8.2: Timely Manner

Recommendation: The Committee recommends a regulatory change that organizations must provide information and communications in a mutually agreed upon timely manner which takes into account the situation and circumstances of the requester and the immediacy and nature of their request.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 4.8.3: Harmonization of Section 12

Recommendation: The Committee recommends that requirements for alternate formats and communications supports in the IASR be moved into the General Requirements of the IASR and harmonized with duplicate requirements. There would be no material change in the requirements, except for any other recommendations made by the Committee regarding Section 12.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 4.8.4: Emergency Requirements

Recommendation: The Committee recommends that emergency requirements across the IASR be consolidated and moved into the General Requirements. There would be no material change in the requirements except for any other recommendations made by the Committee regarding Section 13.

(Motion Carried)

M 4.9 Sections 15-19 – Discussion and Voting on Recommendation(s)

Heather Ingram facilitated a discussion to support the development of recommendations for requirements in Sections 15-19. Rich Donovan initiated voting on the following items:

Motion 4.9.1: Education SDC: Consider Accessible Resources

Recommendation: That the Education SDC study the ability of schools and teachers to find and access trusted accessible resources for their students.

(Motion Carried)

Motion 4.9.2: Accessibility in Education

Recommendation: The Committee recommends that the Education SDC explore ways to include accessibility, specifically e-accessibility, education and skills development in curricula (at the early years, elementary, secondary and post-secondary levels).

(Motion Carried)

M 4.10 Wrap-Up/Recap

Rich Donovan provided a recap of the day and an overview of expectations prior to the next meeting.

Meeting 3: August 2 and 3, 2017

Letter from chair to the minister

August 21, 2017

The Honourable Tracy MacCharles
Minister Responsible for Accessibility
Mowat Block 6^th Floor, 900 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2E1

Dear Minister,

Re: Information and Communications Standards Review Meeting 3 – Minutes and Progress Report

On behalf of the members of the Information and Communications Standards Development Committee, I am pleased to submit the Committee-approved minutes from Meeting 3 held on August 2 and 3, 2017, and to provide you with a brief update on the Committee’s progress.

The Committee has completed the following key deliverables:

Initiated discussion of Sections 15-19 (i.e., requirements for educational and training institutions, libraries etc.);
Continued Discussion and initiated voting on Sections 9-13 (i.e., feedback, accessible formats and communications supports, emergency process etc.);
Reviewed initial advice from the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee;
Initiated discussion and voting on Section 14 (i.e., websites and web content); and
Continued discussion on the review of the Long-Term Objective.

Due to time restrictions, the Committee plans to continue discussion and voting on Sections 9-13 (i.e., feedback, accessible formats and communications supports, emergency process etc.) at Meeting 4. The Committee also plans to revisit discussion and voting on Section 14 following further advice from the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee at Meeting 4.

Prior to Meeting 4 in September, the Committee has indicated that members will discuss action items related to Sections 15-19 with their communities.

Looking ahead to Meeting 4, the Committee will initiate voting on any proposed recommendations related to Sections 15-19, and continue discussion and voting on Sections 9-14.

Sincerely,

(Original signed by)

Rich Donovan
Chair, Information and Communications Standards Development Committee

Meeting information

Date: August 2 and 3, 2017

Location: Churchill Room, Chelsea Hotel, 33 Gerrard Street West, Toronto

Format of Committee Minutes and References: For the purposes of referencing Committee documents and items in the minutes: ‘M’ (Meeting) represents the meeting number/minute items/sections/action items and ‘Partial’ represents limited attendance.

Day 1 present

Standards Development Committee Members: Rich Donovan (Chair), David Berman, David Best, Louise Bray, Jennifer Cowan, Pina D’Intino, Robert Gaunt, Gary Malkowski, Chantal Perreault, James Roots, Kevin Shaw, Jutta Treviranus, Diane Wagner, Richard Watters, Ben Williamson, Mattieu Vachon, Jessica Gabriel

Non-voting Standards Development Committee Members: Michele Babin, Adam Haviaras, Kathy McLachlan

Supporting Staff: Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Kimberly Campos, Sonya Del Monte, Ann Hoy, Heather Ingram, Ryan Nichols, Hayden Porch, Benjamin St. Louis, Christopher Sutton, Casey Teixeira

Guests: Martyn Beckett (Ministry of Education), Bob Minnery (Ministry of Education), Fiona Foster (Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development)

Interpreters: Gloria Brifoglio, Shelia Johnston, Sean Power

Captionist: Gemme Humenny

Regrets: Kate Acs (non-voting), Kim Adeney

Day 1 meeting information

M 3.1 Logistics/Emergency Information

Casey Teixeira provided the Committee with an overview of logistics and emergency information.

M 3.2 Chair’s Welcome and Update

Rich Donovan provided welcoming remarks to the Committee and outlined the agenda for the day.

M 3.3 Section 15-19 - Discussion

Heather Ingram facilitated a discussion of Sections 15-19 (i.e., requirements for educational and training institutions, libraries etc.).

M 3.4 Sections 9-13 – Discussion and Development of Recommendations

Hayden Porch continued facilitating a discussion on Sections 9-13 (i.e., feedback, accessible formats and communications supports, emergency process etc.) and initiated voting.

Motion 3.4.1: Feedback Requirements

Recommendation: The Committee recommends that feedback requirements in Sections 11 and 80.50 of the IASR be harmonized in the General Requirements of the IASR, ensuring both the process requirements of Section 11 and the specific requirement for a process in Section 80.50 about goods, services and facilities remain. During harmonization, the Committee recommends looking at the terms “feedback” and “communication” to help clarify the definitions.

(Motion Carried)

M 3.5 Wrap-Up/Recap

Rich Donovan provided a recap of the day and a brief overview of the next day’s agenda.

Day 2 present

Standards Development Committee Members: Rich Donovan (Chair), David Berman, David Best, Louise Bray, Jennifer Cowan (Partial), Pina D’Intino, Robert Gaunt, Gary Malkowski, Chantal Perreault, James Roots, Kevin Shaw, Jutta Treviranus, Diane Wagner, Richard Watters, Ben Williamson, Mattieu Vachon

Non-voting Standards Development Committee Members: Michele Babin, Adam Haviaras, Kathy McLachlan

Supporting Staff: Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Kimberly Campos, Ann Hoy, Heather Ingram, Ryan Nichols, Sakshi Pachisia, Hayden Porch, Benjamin St. Louis, Christopher Sutton, Casey Teixeira

Guests: Marie-Lison Fougère, Kerrie Tam, Daniel Shire, Aidan Tierney, Fiona Foster (Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development)

Interpreters: Gloria Brifoglio, Shelia Johnston, Sean Power

Captionist: Gemme Humenny

Regrets: Kate Acs (non-voting), Kim Adeney

Day 2 meeting information

M 3.7 Chair’s Welcome

Rich Donovan welcomed the Committee.

M 3.8 Deputy Minister Remarks

Deputy Minister Marie Lison Fougère provided remarks to the Committee.

M 3.9 Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee – Review of Initial Advice

Jutta Treviranus provided the Subcommittee’s initial advice to the Committee.

M 3.10 Section 14 – Digital Inclusion/Section 14 - Discussion

Christopher T. Sutton facilitated a discussion of Section 14 items (i.e., websites and web content) that were not referred to the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee.

Motion 3.10.1: Usage of PDFs

Recommendation: The Committee recommends that the Government not ban the use of PDFs for any obligated organization.

(Motion Carried)

M 3.11 Re-Examination of Long-Term Objective

Susannah Bush facilitated a discussion of the Long-Term Objective for the Information and Communications Standards.

M 3.12 Wrap-Up/Recap

Rich Donovan provided a recap of the day and a brief overview of expectations for members regarding actions and preparations for the next meeting.

Meeting 2: June 21 and 22, 2017

Letter from chair to the minister

July 19, 2017

The Honourable Tracy MacCharles
Minister Responsible for Accessibility
Mowat Block 6^th Floor, 900 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2E1

Dear Minister,

Re: Information and Communications Standards Review Meeting 2 – Minutes and Progress Report

On behalf of the members of the Information and Communications Standards Development Committee, I am pleased to submit the Committee-approved minutes from Meeting 2 held on June 21 and 22, 2017, and to provide you with a brief update on the Committee’s progress.

The Committee has completed the following key deliverables:

established membership and created guiding questions for the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee
initiated discussion on the review of the Long-Term Objective
initiated discussion of Sections 9-13 (i.e., feedback, accessible formats and communications supports, emergency process etc.)

Due to time restrictions, and recognizing that the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario and its partners ministries (Education and Advanced Education and Skills Development) are currently consulting on proposed Education Standards, the Committee plans to discuss Sections 15-19 (i.e., requirements for educational and training institutions, libraries etc.) at Meetings 3 and 4.

Prior to Meeting 3 in August, the Committee has indicated that members will discuss action items related to Sections 9-13 with their communities. In addition, the Technical Subcommittee will have its first meeting in July and provide its initial advice for Meeting 3 of the Committee.

Looking ahead to Meeting 3, the Committee will conclude discussion on Sections 9-13 and vote on any proposed recommendations. The Committee will then begin discussion of Section 14 (i.e., accessible websites and web content) based on feedback from the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee and Sections 15-19.

Sincerely,

(Original signed by)

Rich Donovan
Chair, Information and Communications Standards Development Committee

Meeting information

Date: June 21 and 22, 2017

Location: Wren Room, Chelsea Hotel, 33 Gerrard Street West, Toronto

Day 1 present

Standards Development Committee Members: Rich Donovan (Chair), Kim Adeney, David Berman, David Best, Jennifer Cowan, Pina D’Intino, Robert Gaunt, Chantal Perreault, James Roots, Kevin Shaw, Jutta Treviranus, Diane Wagner, Richard Watters, Ben Williamson

Non-voting Standards Development Committee Members: Kate Acs, Michele Babin, Adam Haviaras, Kathy McLachlan

Supporting Staff: Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Kimberly Campos, Sonya Del Monte, Natalie Early, Ann Hoy (partial), Heather Ingram, Ryan Nichols, Sakshi Pachisia, Hayden Porch, Heather Sinclair, Meridith St. Pierre, Christopher Sutton, Dan Wilson (partial)

Interpreters: Gloria Brifoglio, Shelia Johnston, Sean Power

Captionist: Gemme Humenny

Regrets: Louise Bray, Gary Malkowski, Mattieu Vachon

Resignation: Jessica Gabriel

Day 2 meeting information

M 2.1 Logistics/Emergency Information

Meridith St. Pierre provided the Committee with an overview of logistics and emergency information.

M 2.2 Chair’s Welcome and Update

Rich Donovan provided welcoming remarks to the Committee and outlined the agenda for the day.

M 2.3 Re-Examination of Long-Term Objective

Susannah Bush facilitated a discussion of the Long-Term Objective for the Information and Communications Standards.

M 2.4 Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee

Christopher T. Sutton facilitated a discussion around the guiding questions for the Digital Inclusion Technical Subcommittee.

M 2.5 Sections 9-13 - Discussion

Hayden Porch began facilitating a discussion of Sections 9-13 (i.e., feedback, accessible formats and communications supports, emergency process etc.)

M 2.6 Wrap-Up/Recap

Rich Donovan provided a recap of the day and a brief overview of the next day’s agenda.

Day 2 present

Standards Development Committee Members: Rich Donovan (Chair), Kim Adeney, David Best, Jennifer Cowan, Pina D’Intino, Robert Gaunt, Gary Malkowski, Chantal Perreault, James Roots, Kevin Shaw, Jutta Treviranus, Diane Wagner, Richard Watters, Ben Williamson (partial)

Non-voting Standards Development Committee Members: Kate Acs, Michele Babin, Adam Haviaras, Kathy McLachlan

Supporting Staff: Neuza Barcelos, Mary Bartolomucci, Elisheva Bouskila-Fox (partial), Susannah Bush, Kimberly Campos, Sonya Del Monte, Natalie Early, Heather Ingram, Ryan Nichols, Sakshi Pachisia, Hayden Porch, Heather Sinclair, Meridith St. Pierre, Christopher Sutton

Guest Speaker: Bob Minnery, Alternative Education Resources for Ontario

Interpreters: Shelia Johnston, Carolyn Lesonsky, Sean Power

Captionist: Olivia Arnaud

Regrets: David Berman, Louise Bray, Mattieu Vachon

Resignation: Jessica Gabriel

Day 2 meeting information

M 2.7 Chair’s Welcome

Rich Donovan welcomed the Committee

M 2.8 Sections 9-13 - Discussion

Hayden Porch continued facilitating a discussion of Sections 9-13. Committee members decided on action items to discuss with their communities before Meeting 3.

M 2.9 Guest Presentation – Alternative Education Resources for Ontario (AERO)

Bob Minnery gave a presentation on the work of AERO.

M 2.9 Section 15-19 – Introduction of Feedback

As discussion of Sections 9-13 continued and recognizing that the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario and its partners ministries (Education and Advanced Education and Skills Development)are currently consulting on proposed Education Standards, the Committee decided to discuss Sections 15-19 (i.e., requirements for educational and training institutions, libraries etc) at Meetings 3 and 4. Heather Sinclair provided a brief overview of stakeholder feedback on these sections to provide context for discussion at Meetings 3 and 4.

M 2.10 Wrap-Up/Recap

Rich Donovan provided a recap of the day and outlined the expectations for members regarding actions and preparations for the next meeting.

Appendix A – Action Items

No voting occurred.

Meeting 1: May 8 - 9, 2017

Letter from chair to the minister

June 2, 2017

The Honourable Tracy MacCharles
Minister Responsible for Accessibility
Mowat Block 6^th Floor, 900 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2E1

Dear Minister,

Re: Information and Communications Standards Review Meeting 1 – Minutes and Progress Report

On behalf of the members of the Information and Communications Standards Development Committee, I am pleased to submit the Committee-approved minutes from Meeting 1 held on May 8^th and 9^th, 2017, and to provide you with a brief update on the Committee’s progress.

The Committee has completed the following key deliverables:

completed overview of the Minister’s Mandate Letter and supporting consultation feedback/research
voted in favour of creating a ‘Digital Inclusion’ Technical Sub-Committee
approved the Committee workplan

Looking ahead to Meeting 2 to be held in June 2017, the Committee has indicated that it will decide what expert advice to ask the Digital Inclusion Technical Sub-Committee to provide. In addition, the Committee will begin discussion of other areas of the Standards as identified in the Minister’s Mandate Letter.

Sincerely,

(Original signed by)

Rich Donovan
Chair, Information and Communications Standards Development Committee

Meeting information

Date: May 8 and 9, 2017

Location: Metro Toronto Convention Centre, South Entrance, 222 Bremner Blvd, Toronto, ON (Boardroom 701B)

Day 1 present

Non-voting Standards Development Committee Members: Kate Acs (Non-voting), Kathy McLachlan (Non-voting)

Supporting Staff: Neuza Barcelos, Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Kimberly Campos, Sonya Del Monte, Ann Hoy (partial), Keren Mack, Ryan Nichols, Sakshi Pachisia, Hayden Porch, Heather Sinclair, Benjamin St. Louis (partial), Meridith St. Pierre, Christopher Sutton

Interpreters: Gloria Brifoglio, Clare Gallant, Jerry Markin

Regrets:Michele Babin, Louise Bray, Jessica Gabriel, Gary Malkowski, Chris Schiller, Jutta Treviranus, Mattieu Vachon

Day 1 meeting minutes

M 1.1 Logistics/Emergency Information

Meridith St. Pierre provided the Committee with an overview of logistics and emergency information.

M 1.2 Chair’s Welcome and Roundtable Introductions of Members

Rich Donovan provided welcoming remarks to the Committee, and the Committee gave roundtable introductions.

M 1.3 Setting the Context: Overview of the Information and Communications Standards

Christopher T. Sutton and Hayden Porch provided an overview of the Information and Communications Standards, followed by committee discussion.

M 1.4 Stakeholder Consultation Feedback on Information and Communications Standard

Christopher T. Sutton and Hayden Porch gave a presentation on stakeholder consultation and feedback gathered to support the review and mandate, followed by committee discussion.

M 1.5 Compliance Overview related to the Information and Communications Standard

Benjamin St. Louis gave a presentation on compliance outcomes and data related to the Information and Communications Standards, followed by committee discussion.

M 1.6 Information and Communications Minister’s Mandate Letter Overview

Christopher T. Sutton and Hayden Porch gave a presentation providing an overview of the Minister’s Mandate Letter, followed by committee discussion.

M 1.7 Wrap-Up/Recap

Rich Donovan provided a recap of the day and a brief overview of the next day’s agenda.

Day 2 present

Standards Development Committee Members: Rich Donovan (Chair), Kim Adeney, David Berman, David Best, Louise Bray, Jennifer Cowan, Pina D’Intino, Jessica Gabriel, Robert Gaunt, Chantal Perreault, James Roots, Kevin Shaw, Mattieu Vachon, Diane Wagner, Richard Watters, Ben Williamson

Non-voting Standards Development Committee Members: Kate Acs (Non-voting), Kathy McLachlan (Non-voting)

Supporting Staff: Neuza Barcelos, Mary Bartolomucci, Susannah Bush, Kimberly Campos, Sonya Del Monte, Keren Mack, Ryan Nichols, Sakshi Pachisia, Hayden Porch, Heather Sinclair, Meridith St. Pierre, Christopher Sutton

Interpreters: Gloria Brifoglio, Clare Gallant, Jerry Markin

Regrets: Michele Babin, Gary Malkowski, Chris Schiller, Jutta Treviranus

Day 2 meeting information

M Welcome Remarks

Rich Donovan welcomed the Committee.

M 1.9 Draft Workplan Introduction and Group Discussion

Hayden Porch introduced the Draft Workplan and led a group discussion.

M 1.10 Technical Sub-Committee

Hayden Porch provided an overview of and led a discussion surrounding the potential for Technical Sub-Committees.

Motion 1.10.1: Digital Inclusion Technical Sub-Committee

The Committee voted on the creation of a Digital Inclusion Technical Sub-Committee

(Motion Carried)

Action 1.10.1:

The Committee will submit suggestions and / or volunteer for membership on the Digital Inclusion Technical Sub-Committee by May 19, 2017. The Directorate will then begin recruiting members.

Motion 1.10.2: Language Technical Sub-Committee

The Committee voted on the creation of a ‘Language’ Technical Sub-Committee, with the understanding that a failed motion would result in the discussion around ‘Language’ being forwarded to the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council (ASAC).

(Motion Failed)

Action 1.10.2: The discussion surrounding the ‘Language’ Technical Sub-Committee will be forwarded to ASAC by the Directorate, and Chair Rich Donovan will keep the Committee informed of progress/action.

M 1.11 Draft Workplan Working Session

Hayden Porch led the Committee in a working session on the draft workplan.

Motion 1.11: Workplan Approval

The Committee voted to approve the workplan and submit it to the Minister.

(Motion Carried)

M 1.12 Wrap-Up/Recap

Rich Donovan provided a recap of the day and outlined the expectations for members regarding actions and preparations for the next meeting.

Appendix A – Action Items

Motion 1.10.1:

The Committee voted on the creation of a Digital Inclusion Technical Sub-committee

(Motion Carried)

Action 1.10.1: The Committee will submit suggestions and / or volunteer for membership on the Digital Inclusion Technical Sub-committee by May 19, 2017. The Accessibility Directorate of Ontario will then begin recruiting members.

Motion 1.10.2:

The Committee voted on the creation of a ‘Language’ Technical Sub-Committee, with the understanding that a failed motion would result in the discussion around ‘Language’ being forwarded to the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council (ASAC).

(Motion Failed)

Action 1.10.2: The discussion surrounding the ‘Language’ Technical Sub-committee will be forwarded to ASAC, and Chair Rich Donovan will keep the Committee informed of progress/action.

Motion 1.11:

The Committee voted to approve the workplan and submit it to the Minister.

(Motion Carried)

Updated: September 15, 2021

Published: March 04, 2021