Hey Mike,
Maybe it's just me, but when I see the ad for the NX-3000 at the top of the page and it says > > 22 dB(A), the first thing that pops into my head is "Whay are they advertising that it is GREATER THAN 22 dB(A)????" Then I realized that someone in marketing at Nexus probably doesn't know that > means greater than.
Like I said, maybe it's just me, but chances are if I'm thinking it other people are too. Perhaps you want to tell your contact at Nexus that they should change their ad to use some other symbols.
My two cents.
Nexus Power Supply Ad
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Nexus Power Supply Ad
I think this is probably just an unfortunate choice of arrow type.
The use of two consecutive "greater than" symbols is sometimes encountered in scientific writing (meaning A LOT greater than), but I have always thought this was an informal usage.
The idea that >> was meant as a stylized arrow, not as a logical symbol, is supported by its use in the second line, "excellent airflow". Although it is possible that Nexus wanted to convey the idea that this was "much greater than excellent airflow", most users would probably consider "excellent airflow" to be satisfactory. How often does one find fault with "excellent"? It seems more likely that >> was just an easy way of making an arrow, trying to direct the reader's eye to "look at this".
But your point that ambiguity should be avoided whenever possible is a lesson to us all.
John Coyle
The use of two consecutive "greater than" symbols is sometimes encountered in scientific writing (meaning A LOT greater than), but I have always thought this was an informal usage.
The idea that >> was meant as a stylized arrow, not as a logical symbol, is supported by its use in the second line, "excellent airflow". Although it is possible that Nexus wanted to convey the idea that this was "much greater than excellent airflow", most users would probably consider "excellent airflow" to be satisfactory. How often does one find fault with "excellent"? It seems more likely that >> was just an easy way of making an arrow, trying to direct the reader's eye to "look at this".
But your point that ambiguity should be avoided whenever possible is a lesson to us all.
John Coyle
