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". 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 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 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
