RE: clarity of terminology can save lives
I ran into the same problem, once I got involved in writing technical
instructions. Trying to keep consistent with the proper use of ANSI
'signal words' for safety 'caption boxes', was a very difficult task to
do. Also, the understanding of the differences between the ANSI
definition for 'Warning' and 'Danger' was not completely clear in my
mind. Both definitions appeared to overlapped in a parallel way - to that
of the Avalanche Danger Descriptors of 'Considerable and High.' In both
cases, either word can indicate a risk of death or serious injury. When
creating safety labels in a document, it can quickly get confusing on
which verb to use, and I found that inconsistencies would start to form
from that.
In my mind, Danger means always a hazard -- say, sticking a fork in the electrical outlet, whereas Warning is not advisable, but can be done -- say, working with the wires in your house while the power is still on.
In ANSI Z535 - 'Danger' is defined as an imminently hazardous situation,
while 'Warning' is defined as a potentially hazardous situation. [snip]
As for avalanches, the Swiss definition between 'Considerable' and 'High'I don't ski, and we don't have mountains (We've got hills that people ski on all the time, but they're not mountains), so I really don't know the answer for this. Isn't there some sort of chart with the terms on it that could be (is?) posted at lodges, shown on tv, etc. with the range, and then a description of the current situation on the mountain?
for avalanche-warnings can be just as vague. This is in view of the fact
that 'Considerable' indicates that the snow-pack is only moderately, or
poorly bonded. While 'High' is supposed to indicate that the snow-pack is
poorly bonded. The North American definitions are not much better, as Bil
suggests. But again, there is little separation between these two words,
and this leads to some confusion. Add to that, the subjective nature of
determining what the level of safety really is.
The U.S. National Weather Service has done a better job of classifying
hazards, by the use of 'Watch' and 'Warning.' Where 'Watch' is just that -
watch and wait; and 'Warning' means sever weather is approaching. That
sort of falls apart if someone from Buffalo hears a weather report in
Atlanta - declaring a Heavy Snow Fall Warning is in effect - because of a
possible accumulation of 4" of snow. But at least the classification
system is precise and to the point. Something that the AAA, CAA, and ANZI
could all benefit by taking a closer look at.
Want a laugh? I've been through storms that had a foot of snow an hour, and storms that dumped seven feet of snow in a handful of days. I never recall hearing the phrase Heavy Snow Warning, and actually doubted it was real until I did indeed look it up on the National Weather Service web site. Winter storm watch and winter storm warning? Sure, but not often. Freeze warning? Yes. Small craft advisory? Oh, yes. Frost advisory? Yes. For snowfall, we usually hear if it's a general snowfall or lake effect (lake effect comes off Lake Erie or Ontario in narrow bands, and can therefore leave no snow in one area and several inches not far away), how many inches are expected, or what the percentage of chance of getting any snow is. What constitutes a Heavy Snow Warning if a foot per hour doesn't merit it, or seven feet of it falling on the ground? I can't see how this system is any better than the mountain snowpack stability situation. It's too subjective. Of course, if you said that there was a four inch snowfall coming, and a system indicated that all people should stay off the roads if that happened, well, I'd start to starve soon, and all our kids would be dumb as dirt because schools would never be open. And if a Heavy Snowfall Warning came every few days, it would start to lose its impact pretty fast.
Bil Gladstone wrote:
<snip>
In light of recent multiple tragedies,<snip>
the terminology used for these Ratings has been criticized.
For example, in the Revelstoke area the Hazard is described as
"considerable" through most of the winter. The current controversy
focuses on just what "Considerable" means; is it closer to Moderate, or
closer to High? Or are we just supposed to pause and "consider" that we
really like back country skiing before we leave the lodge?
Valerie Priester
hammerl -at- buffalo -dot- edu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Buy or upgrade to RoboHelp X3 today and receive the WebHelp
Merge Module for FREE ($299 value). RoboHelp X3's all-new
features include conditional text, completely re-engineered
printed documentation output, Context-sensitive Help Toolkit,
single-source layouts, and more!
Order online today at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
Follow-Ups:
- RE: clarity of terminology can save lives, JB Foster
References:
RE: clarity of terminology can save lives: From: JB Foster
Previous by Author:
Re: Hyperlinking terms to the glossary...
Next by Author:
RE: Ideas for conference presentation?
Previous by Thread:
RE: clarity of terminology can save lives
Next by Thread:
RE: clarity of terminology can save lives
Search our Technical Writing Archives & Magazine
Visit TechWhirl's Other Sites
Sponsored Ads