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.
Therese Harris describes:
>>And, he believes that factory workers get so much safety
training anyway, that we are beating a dead horse and losing credibility
because of it. However, the danger level of having body parts caught in the
machine ranges from minor to extreme personal injury, including loss of
fingers, etc. We do have a whole chapter devoted to safety that explains the
various dangers and how they are labeled on and in the machine (to satisfy
CE requirements), in addition to cautionary notes throughout the manual,
plus these cautionary phrases within procedural steps.<<
That sounds pretty thorough. I have never worked in a factory - my sole
experience with formal safety procedures has been some work in school at
various workshops, and sub-aqua diving. IME, repeating a safety warning more
often than appears necessary doesn't hurt - but failing to repeat it might.
> So my questions are:
>-Are we beating a (safe but) dead horse?
The most valid argument your engineer came up with, IMO, was:
>>In some tasks, these steps are repeated up to 6 or 8 times. His argument
is
that since these steps are done so often in every task and procedure, the
repetition will make readers skip over the cautionary part, and it makes us
look silly too.<<
If your readers are getting numbed by repetition and ignoring the cautions
because they're repeated so often, this is a possible risk in itself. This,
it seems to me, is an excellent argument for getting some user feedback -
what do the factory workers themselves say? Has anyone asked them, or their
immediate supervisors, what *their* opinion of your procedures is?
>-Are we compromising safety if we merely say "Lower carriages by pushing
the
>button..."?
I don't know. My instincts say yes: it never hurts to remind people about
safety procedures, no matter how often they've been reminded before. But
does that apply to people to whom safety procedures have become an
instinctive routine? When I get into the front seat of a car, I don't need
to be reminded to fasten my safety belt: it's a safety procedure that I
follow immediately and instinctively. But some drivers - particularly
parents - have an equally instinctive safety routine of saying "Fasten your
seat-belt" even when their passenger is an adult - and some adult passengers
sometimes become irritated by this reminder. If no one is allowed to work on
these machines until the procedure for lowering carriages has become
completely ingrained, then probably not. But presumably these instructions
are for the benefit of people who are not yet completely and thoroughly
trained on the procedures? My instinct would always be to err on the side of
safety, rather than take short cuts, but:
>-Does that extend our liability?
Not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems logical to me that if
you used to warn people at each step and now you no longer do so, you are
necessarily providing *less* security to the user than you used to.
-Can we omit the caution part each time if we put a general caution at the
beginning of each procedure?
-Does repetition necessarily put the reader to sleep?
-What other options might we have?
Could you write a shorter form of the warning for the second or third
reference on any page? Use the full version the first time, and again on a
new page, and the shorter version when the warning is repeated in the same
procedure and page?
For example: 'Shout "CLEAR!" before pushing the button...'
My tuppence-ha'pennorth.
Jane Carnall
Technical Writer, Digital Bridges, Scotland
Unless stated otherwise, these opinions are mine, and mine alone. Apologies
for the long additional sig: it is added automatically and outwith my
control.
E-mail is an informal method of communication and may be subject to data corruption, interception and unauthorised amendment for which Digital Bridges Ltd will accept no liability. Therefore, it will normally be inappropriate to rely on information contained on e-mail without obtaining written confirmation.
This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Attention ForeHelp and Doc-to-Help Users! Upgrade your existing product to
RoboHelp for only $299, through January 31st. RoboHelp can import your
existing Help projects! Learn how else RoboHelp can benefit you. www.ehelp.com/techwr
---
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.
