I can't believe I'm sitting in an ADA compliance webinar where this was just given as an example of compliant and accessible design.
We need to have a LOT more discussion about how usability matters as much as compliance because something that is compliant can still be an accessibility nightmare.
I raised that disabled people have said that this is bad, they responded that we are focusing on compliance today and that usability is another discussion.

It absolutely isn't a different discussion. Something that is unsafe but compliant is not accessible.
As a disabled person, I've been very discouraged during this conference by what feels like a theme of viewing the ADA only as protecting the government from complaints of noncompliance and lawsuits and not actually about making the country accessible for disabled people.
This isn't the only time this week where I've felt like there is a massive disconnect between ADA coordinators and disabled people.

We need disabled people to lead in this space. Adherence to standards without usability is such an issue.
I should've known this was coming. An ADA Coordinator said on day one "our job is administrative, not advocacy" and "it is really tough when we get lawsuits because we work so hard."

They see their duty as protecting the government from suits, not affirming our civil rights.
Folks saying this isn't in the US, I know it is in Canada. But it was given as an example in an ADA compliance webinar as compliant with the 2010 guidelines.
It is becoming clear that this field overwhelmingly favors nondisabled people who can be seen as "impartial" on our civil rights.
It also seems overwhelmingly white, which is a major equity issue. ADA Coordinators are decision makers. They evaluate and prioritize which access issues get fixed and play a big role in the direction of government resources in a community.
So, I'm JUST starting to get my ADA Coordinator certification, but I looked at the 2010 standards and they say that ramps with a rise greater than 6 inches require handrails on both sides.

So unless I'm reading that wrong, this would not be compliant.
Important reply: https://twitter.com/MurphyJ/status/1524503940699758592?t=hFqFn27JsTTkxS_mhdC9Sg&s=19
And I still don't want to lose the context of regardless of whether this has the necessary grade to be a ramp, it was built in Canada in the 1980s and isn't an appropriate example for 2010 ADA standards.
Update: I just looked at the slide they showed and their argument was that this has a slope of less than 5% and isn't a ramp AND that it is an accessible route? AND it was on the slide for ramp compliance.

So many choices were made here that I don't understand.
Also the image they used is of the same staircase at a different angle where the the landings/turnarounds were conveniently cut off, which took away some important context.
The portion of the slide, for reference (alt text included)

The irony of this presentation being called "Learning from Others' Mistakes" and this isn't one of the mistakes
You can follow @Sblahov.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: