Is "work Appropriate Ink" Really A Thing?

[Noihvo]

[twin63]

I work for a regional blood bank that is regulated by the state and the FDA. For handwritten records, ink color is not specified. However, it is required that indelible ink be used. Some of our records must be retained indefinitely, so the expectation is that these records will be legible for many years.

 

Regarding ink color....even though it is not dictated by regulatory agencies, my company's policy is that only black or blue ink will be used for official records.

[rosa_m]

Which ink is this note ?

 

[TSherbs]

I'm a teacher. My workplace requires many handwritten documents. The corporate blue, blueblack, black standard exists for us, but there is some flexibility. I wrote my last official self-evaluation document entirely on Rhodia with a fountain pen in blue ink. I got quizzical looks, but the document was accepted and put in my official employment file. I smiled smugly at my boss.

[Mr5x5]

In my corner of the academic world almost everything is electronic. There are the rare forms haven't been converted to PDFs but I fill them out in whatever color I want. My passport form was the only document in the last few years that specified ink color.

[PaperDarts]

Going digital in my office environment seems to have exponentially multiplied the amount of paper produced! E-signatures were used more and more often, but there were still many documents produced for Cabinet and senior management that had to have actual signatures. We were asked to use blue ink to distinguish between originals and photocopies.

But for my own meeting notes, or for marking up paper documents, I could go crazy with any colour I chose.

[NeverTapOut]

I typically use MontBlanc Royal Blue at work because I mainly fill out contracts. I could use black ink however I have a hard time telling if it is an original or a copy when using black ink.

[Steveg58]

Going back to pre-photocopier days red was reserved for correcting errors and green was reserved for auditors. In those days that really only left variations of blue and black. Other colours were out there but not commonly accessible.

Early photocopiers had trouble reproducing blue so in certain places blue ink was banned.

Today I use whatever pleases me because I am the only person likely to have to read my own writing. I use water fast inks because I one dropped my minute book in a puddle ... very bad.

[Ron Z]

Before the FCC went to electronic filing of all applications and forms, the original had to be signed in blue ink, and three copies sent with the original. As far as I know, a paper copy of all authorizations is still sent to stations, with the form signed in a distinctive color of blue ink.

 

The e-filing has made searching the database of FCC applications and authorizations much easier. You can now search for the applications and authorizations for all stations on the air, whatever and wherever they are. Early authorizations that were paper only may not be in the database, but the dates that the applications were filed and the dates they were granted are there.

[Fermata]

For those in Law our notebooks/daybooks are subject to audit and may be submitted into Court as evidence. Notes taken on a computer are no submissable as they are subject to corruption.

 

You would be thought pretty foolish if you were to take clients notes and instructions in a light coloured ink, black is preferred, you could get away with dark green or blue.

 

 

There is a similar move away from MBs, especially the flashy editions. You can understand that it would be a poor choice to sit in front of your client who needs legal assistance whilst you have a £1500 pen taking notes, some legal stationers now stock refurbished Parker 51s for this reason.

 

If you get the chance to visit Lloyds of London you will see that all of the underwriters use a fountain pen, the majority write in black but there is the oddball who uses strange inks to better see their scratch at a glance.

[kazoolaw]

For those in Law our notebooks/daybooks are subject to audit and may be submitted into Court as evidence....

 

...legal stationers now stock refurbished Parker 51s for this reason.

 

US lawyer here: curious where and how your notebooks/day books would be audited (and who would do the auditing) and when they would be admitted into evidence.

 

I'd love to be in a store with refurbished 51s.

 

gary

[Fermata]

US lawyer here: curious where and how your notebooks/day books would be audited (and who would do the auditing) and when they would be admitted into evidence.

 

I'd love to be in a store with refurbished 51s.

 

gary

 

Our notebooks are subject to audit at any time by a senior partner and for any reason but especially for CPD. There is also the possibilty of all our work being subject to review by the Law Society if an invoice is challenged

 

I have only once had to submit notebooks into a Court of Arbitration when there was a dispute on fees and not in relation to client matters. The Judge said that even though Minutes had been taken and presented the following day he would want to see a contemporaneous record and would not accept a computer record.

[txomsy]

Yeah. It is more difficult to "forge" or manipulate notes taken on the fly as you have little time. It is a lot easier to do that when you sit later in front of your computer with lots of time to think.

 

Something similar happens in tech companies. When you talk to clients, designers, colleagues, it is often more efficient to make drafts on paper. Then you need to keep those notes to remember what was discussed. And most important, to prove you haven't tampered with memory. I mean, you could have agreed on some design, tasks, whatever and then later say you agreed or understood something different. If you take notes that everybody has seen and agreed to (and even better, signed), you can always claim you are faithful to what was discussed.

 

The electronic version is cool, but in my experience not half as reliable. A draft taken on a meeting can be signed and accepted. Mostly so if both parties have contributed to it: no way you can deny what you yourself wrote or drafted. A draft taken from a meeting, moved to computer, redacted and made pretty and then re-circulated for signature has tow major problems: first, you may not be faithful to the draft when redacting your reminiscences of the meeting (each one remembers one thing) or may "explain" better or detail some aspects, and second and most relevant, when you circulate it for signing later and nobody is present any more, most people won't bother to sign. You no longer have a reference document. A draft on paper will not be as detailed (like each one's reminiscences) and will be more open (more likely to be agreed on) and, is easier to obtain agreements on site. A paper draft, signed, is undeniable. An electronic version, unsigned, is useless.

 

Yeah, so then you do nothing if not signed. My experience is people will sign on the spot, because they are there exclusively for that, but once they return, they'll have other tasks, often more important and e-signing becomes a nuisance. If you want any work done and being able to proceed, nothing can beat paper on the spot.

 

I'll never forget a meeting in the Netherlands. The host reserved a hotel with no electronic facilities (hard to find, BTW). He said, if we had it, everyone would be thinking of other things. By not having access to the Net or to computers, or to communications channels, he could guarantee everybody would have their full attention on the topics discussed. A whiteboard and markers, notebooks and pens were more than enough to solve all our issues.

 

e-Anything is overrated.

[BaronWulfraed]

Before the FCC went to electronic filing of all applications and forms, the original had to be signed in blue ink, and three copies sent with the original. As far as I know, a paper copy of all authorizations is still sent to stations, with the form signed in a distinctive color of blue ink.

 

That may apply for broadcast stations, but Amateur and GMRS are PDF downloads these days. There may be an option to request hard-copy (though I wouldn't be surprised if they charge handling fees for such).

[Intensity]

What do you think about teal-leaning blue-black-ish inks, such as KWZ IG Turquoise? Basically it's dark enough and blue enough, but also distinctively teal-leaning. Is that kind of color considered to be outside the realm of formally acceptable inks for the more strict (but not the strictest) applications? For instance signatures, those legal notes, etc.?

[silverlifter]

I haven't used KWZ IG Teal, but I do use IG Blue #5 which leans teal once it dries and I would not hesistate to use that on a formal document.

[Ron Z]

 

That may apply for broadcast stations, but Amateur and GMRS are PDF downloads these days. There may be an option to request hard-copy (though I wouldn't be surprised if they charge handling fees for such).

 

I can still download the authorizations for the stations if I need/needed to, but the original was still being sent to stations when the authorization was granted. Renewals were an oversize post card.

[wallylynn]

 

That may apply for broadcast stations, but Amateur and GMRS are PDF downloads these days. There may be an option to request hard-copy (though I wouldn't be surprised if they charge handling fees for such).

I got surprised by this. The only difference between official and not was a watermark. A friend commented "thatllooks like a photocopy"

[Intensity]

I haven't used KWZ IG Teal, but I do use IG Blue #5 which leans teal once it dries and I would not hesistate to use that on a formal document.

 

I believe IG Turquoise is more green than the more conservative IG Blue #5. I don't have Blue #5 myself, but looking at Vanness' photographs, there's a noticeable difference. Images from Vanness1938.com:

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Intensity

[silverlifter]

It is a little greener than the swatch, but not as light as the turquoise.

 

This is on TR: