Is OK/NOK better than "fail/success"
My team is discussing how we should indicate, in a logbook, whether a specific action ended with success or not. I started putting it like
timestamp | action name (fail) | description
timestamp | action name (success) | description
One of the team members suggested replacing fail/success with OK/NOK:
timestamp | first action name (OK) | description
timestamp | 2nd action name (NOK) | description
I wouldn't mind such a detail, if he didn't say it would improve readability. I doubt it:
- OK and NOK correlate to 66 %, so arguably when quickly going through a lot of text, it is probable to confuse NOK for OK. To the contrary,
fail
has 0 correlation withsuccess
. fail
has a varying letter height, whichsuccess
doesn't, making them look very different.
Am I thinking in the right direction? Is there any resource where I can read about such details? I believe something like this should be very well known in the area of cockpit or nuclear power plant control room design.