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
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
