Re: warningisms

Subject: Re: warningisms
From: Marc Santacroce <santa -at- TFS -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 16:17:35 -0800

In DoD doc I'm used to:

>> WARNING Could cause injury or death

>> CAUTION Could cause damage to equipment

>> NOTE Identifies preferred mode of operation.

At 11:02 AM 1/12/95 -0600, Tom Little wrote:
>from Ian White:

>> As I understand it, there is at least an informal heirarchy of terms
>> for safety notices in user manuals, something like:

>> CAUTION This could produce unwanted results, or damage data or equipment

>> WARNING This could cause personal injury (or do severe damage to data
>> or equipment?)
>> DANGER This could kill a human being or cause serious injury.

>This is similar to what we do here, except that we don't use DANGER, and
>must be harm to people or the environment.

>Ideally, the definitions should prevent both the overuse and the underuse of
>cautions/warnings. In practice, both problems continue.




M_a_r_c_ A. _S_a_n_t_a_c_r_o_c_e_________________________
Technical Writer/Trainer
TRW Financial Systems, Inc.
300 Lakeside Dr.
Oakland, CA 94612-3540
santa -at- tfs -dot- com santacroce -at- aol -dot- com

"An idiot with a computer is a faster, better idiot"
- Rich Julius

Previous by Author: Certfication
Next by Author: Re: Certfication
Previous by Thread: warningisms
Next by Thread: Re: Moderating Techwhirl; FAQs

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads