>-----Original Message----- >From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] >Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 11:49 AM >To: richhug...@aol.com >Cc: peperkin...@cs.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >Subject: Re: Symbols vs. text - was EN61010-1, Symbol 14 > > > > > > >Hi Richard: > > >> You said "We in the product safety industry must be very >careful that we use >> symbols in strict accordance with their definitions". No >issue with you >> there. However, the paper states that some of these misuses were >> perpetrated by people not even connected with electrical >engineering, let >> alone safety. > >Indeed. > >We need to keep such people from learning about >our safety symbols (except when we use them in >the proper venue and context). :-) > >> This brings me to another of your statements "The fact of >misuse of symbols >> dilutes the meaning of the symbol. The more the misuse, >the less valuable >> the symbol is for safety purposes." Perhaps this is true, >let's assume it >> is for the moment. What then are the options available to >us? Either we >> have to find a way of policing the use safety symbols or >we have to face the >> possibility that every symbol described in IEC 60417 could >become unusable >> due to misuse. Any suggestions on how to police >(internationally, of course) >> the incorrect use of IEC and ISO symbols? > >We need to first make sure our house is in order. > >First, do we have clear, unambiguous definitions >for our safety symbols? Based on the very short >definitions in 417, I think not. I believe we >need much more work on the definitions. > >Second, we need to make sure we only use the >symbols in accordance with the definition. We >can "police" ourselves through our traditional >third-party safety certification of products. > >> So what do we do as regards written words? We look at the >context in which >> the word is used. If I were to pronounce that an object >is "cool" then the >> chances are that I would mean that it is below room >temperature - but if my >> daughter were to pronounce an object "cool" then the >chances are that it >> would be the latest 'in thing'. Confusing? In theory >maybe, in practice not >> really. Of course, the standards for word definitions >(which, for the sake >> of simplicity, I'll call dictionaries) do describe >multiple common uses of >> individual words (including examples of their contextual >usage, if they're >> any good). > >The preceding is a very good statement of the >problem of multiple definitions for both words >and symbols. > >Let's back up a step and ask the purpose of the >symbol (or even the set of words). > >I submit that the purpose is to invoke an action >on the part of the reader. If the symbol/words >is in regard of safety, then I submit that the >action invoked is because of lack of a suitable >safeguard. > >Products should be designed so that no safety >symbols/words are required (at least for the >user/operator). > >If you look at your monitor, keyboard, and >computer, you probably will see no symbols or >words relating to safety. So, products CAN be >designed without the need for safety symbols. > >You ask "So what do we do as regards written >words?" My response is design the product so >that no words or symbols are needed insofar as >safety is concerned. > > >Best regards, >Rich >
Rich: Allow me a couple of observations on safety, from my viewpoint as a consumer rather than a safety specialist. I find the universal alert symbol (the exclamation point within a triangle) to be rather useless at best and even distractive. It's the equivalent to shouting "Hey!", with no hint of what the true danger is. Sure, it puts you on guard, but while you are looking for the sharp edge to avoid, do you instead get burned from a hot surface? I would much rather have a specific hazard depicted so I know right away what the hazard is. Further, I think symbols should have a hierarchy of warning. There's only a few ways that the human body reacts to nasty outside stimuli (i.e., you bleed, burn, freeze, have pieces fall off). The top-level safety symbol should express the major danger category. Then, for people who haven't yet fled the area, you can have all kinds of very graphic depictions of trauma (superheated radioactive acidic steam). Now, about keyboards. How about "CAUTION: May induce repetitive stress injury"? That symbol is gonna take some hard thought! Remarkably, on something truly dangerous (razor blades), I have never seen a warning etched on each blade. Is there some product category for them, something like Generally Recognized As Doggone Dangerous (GRADD)? Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
