TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: CE Safety Symbols/Verbage vs US Cautions/Warnings?
Subject:Re: CE Safety Symbols/Verbage vs US Cautions/Warnings? From:Mercedes Abels <maa5906 -at- GRIFFON -dot- MWSC -dot- EDU> Date:Thu, 21 Dec 1995 13:48:59 -0600
The company where I work does operator and maintenance manuals for
utility indusrty vehicles---lots of Danger, Warning, Caution stuff. We
use ANSI guidelines for the text of the safety alert, but we preface the
whole thing with the triangle-exclamation point symbol. For instance:
<symbol> Danger
Do not exceed the figures stated on the jib capacity chart. Overloading
the jib may cause failure of the jib. Serious injury or death could result.
Our units are sold in several foreign countries and this alert seems to
be aceptable, but there may be some other requirements that I'm not yet
aware of.
Marci
On Thu, 21 Dec 1995, John Gabber wrote:
> In shifting our US-made product user documentation toward CE approval for
> European markets, we're sensing an apparent conflict between the CE symbol,
> the exclamation-point-in-a-triangle (defined in some places as "Caution,"
> and in others as "Warning") with the traditional bi-level Caution/Warning
> statements, with their precedence in US tort law.
