Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Oh yeah? Well, eureka too.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                             

ISO standard for formal wear (typed using Just A Minute rules)

In memory of Clement Freud, this idea will be typed without deviation, hesitation or repetition, in under a minute.
  (+9)(+9)
(+9)
  [vote for,
against]

Current formal wear is primitive and impractical. It also allows undefined matters of judgment. For instance, an interview candidate may be judged on their appearence without specifically defined criteria. Moreover, sexes have different dress standards.

Therefore I propose that there be a unisex ISO specification for formal wear, defining clothing types, situations where they are appropriate including level of formality required, with all impracticalities removed.

nineteenthly, Apr 16 2009

Who on earth is Clement Freud? http://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Clement_Freud
That's who. [Aristotle, Apr 16 2009]

Just A Minute http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A330797
Not a rapper with very short singles, honest. [Aristotle, Apr 16 2009]

Frank Muir http://www.geocitie...ula/4658/fmuir.html
another comedy gentleman genius [xenzag, Apr 16 2009]

Scruffy Formal Dress Code Scruffy_20Formal_20Dress_20Code
by Guy Fox, late of this parish. [calum, Apr 16 2009]

dress code for riding camels, starting with socks dress_20code_20for_...ting_20with_20socks
by po, of this parish. [calum, Apr 16 2009]

[link]






       Smart casual would be even harder to codify.
Aristotle, Apr 16 2009
  

       Then the issue's more pressing.
nineteenthly, Apr 16 2009
  

       <bzzzt>Repetition of 'wear'
"ISO standards are maintained for numerous topical areas, including:
messages
carrot lengths
sago
jam
beans
chocolate
dachsund
and all manner of other alternative arrangements....leading up to, but not limited by....
currency codes
countries
...
oceans
continents
sawdust granule sizes
..."
zen_tom, Apr 16 2009
  

       Point for nineteenthly for an incorrect interruption from zen_tom: 'wear' is in the title so can be used as many times as required.
gnomethang, Apr 16 2009
  

       bzzzzzzzt!
Hesitation between 'standards' and 'Therefore'
gnomethang, Apr 16 2009
  

       <bzzt> [IanTindale] Deviation via headgear - trilbies and fedoras are not, and never have been part of formal wear.   

       Elephant and Castle ... Embankment ... Mornington Crescent!
coprocephalous, Apr 16 2009
  

       Thanks, [gnomethang], I was about to say so myself. I should've missed out the paragraph break. [Zen_tom], good Freud impersonation. I'm trying to decide if I should adhere to the form of Just A Minute in these annos.
Good point, [Ian]. I tend to want a different kind of standard, maybe silver jumpsuits or togas. I'm no fan of hats, but i see their practicality.
Cockfosters.
nineteenthly, Apr 16 2009
  

       Clement Freud is a great loss. See also Frank Muir.... part of a generation that seemingly will not be replaced, given the exponential rate of dumbing down that is in progress, especially at school/undergrad level. Mutter, mutter, mutter....repetition of "mutter" without hesistation or deviation. (justified rant)
xenzag, Apr 16 2009
  

       You are just so right, [xenzag]. This is what getting old feels like as well. The question is, how much of it is justified and how much is getting old?
nineteenthly, Apr 16 2009
  

       Very funny links [calum] I don't recall either.
blissmiss, Apr 16 2009
  

       [21_Q], there ought to be a law against it, and if not, this would do instead.
nineteenthly, Apr 16 2009
  

       Does anybody here actually understand ISO certification? ISO 9000, 9001 etc are certifications that you have documented the internal procedures of your individual company in the production of a product. ISO does not require anything more than documenting what you already do to assure the quality of the final product. If you want to include employee grooming in your 9001, god help you.
WcW, Apr 17 2009
  

       ISO 9000 is only one standard among many, for instance ISO 10079 - medical suction equipment, or ISO 17697 - seam strength in socks. This isn't about employee grooming so much as, among many other things, providing a definable standard which would enable someone to defend themselves against accusations of being scruffy, and maybe also to give the sartorially impaired a little help. It could be applied, for example, at a wedding, in a club or a formal dinner party. The other point is that, if people don't like what they wear, and generally people find business attire uncomfortable, why not have an organisation consisting of people who presumably wear the stuff get together and change it? Other areas of work have practical clothing, for instance overalls or wetsuits, so why not have a proper look at the business environment and define a standard? That standard can then be applied with defined variants for other situations such as a concert pianist or the audience in an opera. Everybody wins.
nineteenthly, Apr 17 2009
  

       I went to a Just a Minute recording in January. Clement Freud was on very good form (and teasing Nicholas Parsons by silently nodding the answers to questions, instead of saying "Yes", like you're supposed to on the radio).
hippo, Apr 17 2009
  

       [Hippo], you have my envy. It goes on tour, doesn't it? I should look out for that sort of thing more. Still, too late to witness Clement Freud. It was mentioned that he nodded a lot on his obit on Today.
nineteenthly, Apr 17 2009
  

       yes, but the 9000 and 9001 are simple standards of documentation. "we do not check this" is an acceptable answer, if it is true.
WcW, Apr 17 2009
  

       [Up_On], yes, i'm afraid so. Radio Four is a celebrity nursing home. Nicholas Parsons is even older than Clement Freud, and Robert Robinson, who still presents a panel show in the middle of the night on Saturdays, i think, is eighty-one.   

       [WcW], due to the rather gabbled nature of my idea because of the tribute thing, i didn't go into enough detail, so i'll do it here.   

       The suit and tie thing should be completely scrapped because it's uncomfortable, impractical, and not unisex. Women in particular have to make mind-mangling judgments about what their clothes are saying and whether they're appropriate.   

       This should be replaced by a formally defined specification for formal wear, with a number of different standards, excluding casual, which is then redefined as "not otherwise specified", if you catch my drift.   

       These standards should be definable levels and types of formality, so for example there's the less work-related "suitable for bars with a dress code", "restaurant requiring a tie", "wedding guest" and so on, then the office work related set of standards which include the likes of dressing down on a particular day of the week, everyday workwear and interview standards, whose boundaries are strictly defined, so no-one can be unjustly accused of, for example, giving out the wrong messages or not taking something seriously enough.   

       In addition, comfort and practicality should be taken into consideration, so for example considerations such as temperature, freedom of movement and not showing the dirt should be included. I'm being deliberately vague about the precise nature of the clothing concerned because i think it should be decided by committee and a consultation process.   

       Once the standard exists, it should replace the current de facto standard of suit and tie for men and that whole mess of things women have to deal with.
nineteenthly, Apr 17 2009
  

       That's fine, but there are circumstances where people _have_ to look basically the same. There could be flexibility on minor points and people would be no worse off than they now are in those situations. I'm not expecting this to apply to every area of one's life.
nineteenthly, Apr 17 2009
  

       I...err...oh, yes, I was going to, erm, say that...err...What was the question again?
DrBob, Apr 17 2009
  

       ok, but this isn't the basis of an iso 9K. 9k's are documentation standards, documentation demonstrating that the QC measuring tools that you use have been calibrated and that your procedures are fully documented. If you spit on the widget and polish it with a dirty cloth to remove any residue that is fine re. ISO 9k as long as that is your documented procedure, here's how it would look [ 12.4.c : For visible residues detected by QC inspector at 1.12.34a use of procedure 13.4c to meet standards set under S. 34.12, Compliance oversight by QC stage 2 supervisor, verified by random sampling audit under section 4.2] If you want to lay out your standards and the procedures used to enforce them, then establish a model to verify that the standards are being met, and tie this to an auditing procedure that could mean the expensive loss of your coveted 9K then go right ahead. I'm sure quite a few service companies have (Mc. Donalds, etc.) Generally speaking however if you can avoid having a QC procedure included in the ISO 9K you do.
WcW, Apr 17 2009
  

       [WcW], there are many different ISO standards used around the world.   

       And they all share some similarities, but they all vary also.   

       ISO used to be just "say what you do, do what you say", but it's grown beyond that.   

       In my day job, it dictates the documentation of communication with customers, the evolution and records of a product design, the level of record keeping required for the company, the traceability of measurements to international standards, and more.   

       It varys depending on your business, but generally it requires you to do the things you would be doing anyway if you wanted to be a profitable business with happy customers.
normzone, Apr 17 2009
  

       //there are many different ISO standards used around the world. And they all share some similarities, but they all vary also. // - sounds like they need to be standardised...
hippo, Apr 17 2009
  

       Yes, this has little to do with ISO 9000. It could have been BSI or ANSI, or even IEEE, though that would probably be painful. [Hippo], for all i know there is one and in fact i am now going to look.
[DrBob], you asked for this: BZZZT! Hesitation.
nineteenthly, Apr 17 2009
  

       A Clicking Vicky bun.
skinflaps, Apr 17 2009
  

       Thanks, there's so much i don't know about his life, clearly. More than a Liberal MP, chef and dog food promoter. How many people combine those three?
nineteenthly, Apr 17 2009
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle