>-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 10:59 AM >To: EMC-PSTC >Subject: Re: Symbols vs. text - was EN61010-1, Symbol 14 > > > >On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 08:28:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote: >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Rich Nute [mailto:[email protected]] >>>Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 11:49 AM >>>To: [email protected] >>>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >>>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".
SNIP >>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). SNIP >>Regards, >>Ed Price >>[email protected] > >Hi Ed (and group): > >Maybe these labels are what you have in mind? I think the top half of >the page are ISO symbols. >Are they too 'busy'? Would they get the message across to the majority >of product users? > >http://www.bay-labels.com/safety_symbols.htm > >Pat > >------------------------------------------- Pat: Yes, those labels at http://www.bay-labels.com/safety_symbols.htm are a good example. #1 just shouts at you, but doesn't tell you anything. Your reaction is "Huh! What, where, slippery floor or high voltage?" #2, #11, #13 & #18 are really good specific hazard symbols; to me, they clearly define an immediate threat. I wish I could say that #7 & #25 were good symbols, but I understand them by training only. #7 might mean "bright light" and #25 might mean "no bare hands" to someone else. #31, #32 & #33 are all nice symbols, but the hazard is quite similar. It's nice to be specific, but do you really care if the symbol differentiates a cog wheel from a pulley from a gear? #5 almost looks like a bullet hole at first. Finally, #3 is my choice for a truly improper warning symbol, and should not be included with any set of hazard symbols. A fuse advisory, of all things! Honestly, without the text, did anyone guess this one? CAUTION: My personal impressions only <g>. Regards, Ed Ed Price [email protected] NARTE Certified EMC Engineer & Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty 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: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] 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
