Hi Richard:
> As you say, this web site provides a discussion on the exclamation symbol.
> However, the discussion is slanted in one direction that not everyone in
the
> safety fraternity would necessarily subscribe to. For instance, I have
seen
> the 'high voltage flash' sign used as a symbol in an internet cafe' - among
> other misuses. I'm sure that others have examples of symbols defined in
IEC
> 60417 being misused: does this mean that they are no longer usable for
> safety purposes?
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.
Multiple uses (or misuses) implies multiple meanings.
Multiple meanings create confusion in the mind of the
beholder.
To quote the paper:
"The power of the safety alert symbol to highlight
a safety concern is diluted when the symbol is
used for a myriad of lesser tasks. Each non-safety
appearance of the symbol produces an "anti-teaching"
effect."
We in the product safety industry must be very careful
that we use symbols in strict accordance with their
definitions.
> Perhaps you were not intending to endorse the viewpoint expressed? Please
> confirm.
My comment was:
> For a history and discussion of this symbol, see:
This was nothing more than a reference. I feel the
reference provides some interesting and useful
information in regard of the symbol. I would hope
that my statement did not imply endorsement of the
proposal presented in the document.
I feel the article provides some reasonable ideas for
general understanding of symbols along with specific
criticisms of the safety alert symbol.
I agree with some of the conclusions, but not all.
Conclusion 1: Agree.
Conclusion 2: Neutral, because the symbol is arbitrary.
Conclusion 3: Not applicable; applies to lockout tags.
Conclusion 4: Agree with first sentence; disagree with
second sentence.
Conclusion 5: Emphatically agree.
Conslusion 6: Agree.
Conclusion 7: Neutral, because this is a proposal.
Conclusion 8: Not applicable to endorsement.
I do not endorse the proposed international safety
alert symbol presented in the paper. I would guess
that few or none have endorsed the proposal as it is
2-1/2 years since publication of the paper and I have
seen no movement for adoption.
The characters (letters) that comprise this message
are symbols. We arrange these symbols into words.
Each word has a definition; some words have more than
one definition. The more definitions a word has, the
more chance for confusion as to which definition is
applicable in a specific use. Indeed, the definition
of words is taken only in the context of a sentence
(a group of words) or even a paragraph (a group of
sentences). Without a definition and a usage, a word
is simply a group of letters. (Stare at one of these
words for a few moments and you'll see what I mean.)
(Actually, letters and words represent sounds that we
utter. Misspelling of words without loss of the
sound does not lose the meaning of the words. There
is a famous poem about a pea sea spell-checker that
demonstrates this concept. A symbol does not
represent a sound that we utter; therefore, a symbol
is highly subject to misunderstanding.)
So, too, for safety and other non-word symbols. Each
symbol has a definition. As with words, many of us
simply don't look up the definition before we use the
symbol (or word). Consequently, symbols are often
misused. The more the misuse, the less useful the
symbol (or word).
Symbols usually don't represent a single word, but
rather a phrase or even a complete sentence. Abstract
and arbitrary symbols simply don't/can't have obvious
definitions. For this reason, we in the safety
industry must be very careful to only use safety
symbols in strict accordance with their definition.
A personal note: Having lived in Spain for almost
two years, my wife and I had appliances with nothing
but symbols on them. Not having grown up with these
symbols as would a local person, we found ourselves
quite confused by many of the symbols on our washing
machine, dryer, dishwasher, TV, and stereo.
Symbols are NOT a panacea for non-language conveyance
of information. Nor do the comprise an international
language.
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
