I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute wrote (in
<200304251532.iaa00...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com>) about 'Symbols vs. text -
was EN61010-1, Symbol 14 - validation' on Fri, 25 Apr 2003:
>I take this to mean that the group is given the
>definition and then asked to identify the sy
Hi Pete:
> This usually means developing a focus group and getting them to pick it out
> of a group of symbols when asked to identify the symbol for 'XXX'.
I take this to mean that the group is given the
definition and then asked to identify the symbol
that matches the definition.
Isn
Ok gang,
Lots of chatter on this subject, but... We don't randomly pick
symbols to represent a message...
The US standard, ANSI Z535, allows folks to generate a new symbol,
but it must be properly evaluated and verified by use of technical means.
This usually means developing
I read in !emc-pstc that Pete Perkins wrote (in
<001f01c30a82$2f97a740$1522c6ac@oemcomputer>) about 'Symbols vs. text -
was EN61010-1, Symbol 14 - validation' on Thu, 24 Apr 2003:
> I'd like to see the validation evaluation for each of the symbols in
>IEC
>-Original Message-
>From: pat.law...@verizon.net [mailto:pat.law...@verizon.net]
>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, ed.pr...@cubic.com wrot
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 08:28:19 -0700, ed.pr...@cubic.com wrote:
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
>>Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 11:49 AM
>>To: richhug...@aol.com
>>Cc: peperkin...@cs.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>>
>-Original Message-
>From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 11:49 AM
>To: richhug...@aol.com
>Cc: peperkin...@cs.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: Symbols vs. text - was EN61010-1, Symbol 14
>
>
>
>
>
>
&
Richard,
Thank you for your ongoing comments on this situation.
This issue is mixed between the technical and legal communities. In
the US, there have been a number of cases lost where sufficient information
was not given to the user on the equipment and the user was seriously
Hi Richard:
> > Products should be designed so that no safety symbols/words are required
> (at least for the user/operator).
>
> A very laudable viewpoint and one that is easily achievable in the examples
> you provided. However, with certain products there has to be a residual
Hi Richard:
> As you know, standards are not static things set in stone. If you think
> that IEC 60417 needs to be changed to improve understanding then join the
> relevant committee and make a proposal. No proposal, no change. Even if
> everyone on this exploder list were to expre
Hi Rich,
> 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.
As you know, standards are not static things set in stone. If you think
that IEC 60417 needs to
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 ele
Rich,
Thank you for explaining that words were made from letters and sentences
were made from a mixture of words (and letters by the way). It's simply
amazing how informative these exchanges can be!
You said "We in the product safety industry must be very careful that we use
symbols in strict
13 matches
Mail list logo
