Hi John:
> >I feel the authors of these definitions neither consulted
> >a dictionary nor the users of warnings.
>
> I'm sure that you are right, but what is the alternative to using
> existing words but with special definitions that make their meanings
> more precise? If you solve this one, you clear up a significant problem
> in standards-writing.
Well... I guess I didn't make my point.
The ANSI standard defines three classes of signal
words.
My point is that the actual signal word is largely
unimportant to warning (the verb) the user. The
signal word calls attention to the warning. The
classes of attention-getting simply are not
recognized by users (and are not consistent with
dictionary definitions of the words).
One could just as well use any of the described
signal words (and maybe some others as already
suggested here) or various suitable symbols for
any of the severity classes of warnings.
The degree of detail in specifying classes for
signal words is not warranted. Delete these
specific requirements for signal words from the
standards. (We are over-standardized in this
case.) Instead, concentrate on effective content
of the warning.
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:
Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org
Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.
