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.
Subject:Re: Caution, warning, and danger From:Jerry Blackerby <exujbl -at- EXU -dot- ERICSSON -dot- SE> Date:Wed, 8 Jun 1994 15:13:55 -0500
LaVonna said:
>| Jerry listed Bellcore standards in this order:
>| DANGER, CAUTION, WARNING.
>|
>| Isn't WARNING stronger than CAUTION?
>| LaVonna lffunkhouser -at- halnet -dot- com
I always considered WARNING stronger than CAUTION until
I began writing for the telephony industry. I do not know
where or when the Bell companies came up with these definitions
and priorities, but my listing is right out of their standards.
In a telephone office, every piece of equipment is redundant
except the lines going to subscribers. I guess that is the
reason they consider loss of service stronger than damage to
equipment. They specifically show examples of that indicate
they consider CAUTIONS a higher priority than WARNINGS.
Jerry
==================================_=====================================
|| Jerry Blackerby || _| ~~. || Practice random kindness ||
|| 214-907-7810 (w) || \, _} || and senseless acts of ||
|| exujbl -at- exu -dot- ericsson -dot- se || \( || beauty. ||
========================================================================
