The Clearview thread

[Scott5114]

Neither Clearview or Series Gothic had [...] native small capitals character sets, despite elements like cardinal direction signs and elements requiring large cap/small cap treatment.

Not that it's implemented as such or recommended anywhere, but if you use the small-cap proportion required by the MUTCD and make the uppercase letter Series E and the small-cap letters E(M), you get something pretty close to typographically-correct small caps.

[Takumi]

A layman's opinion, from Jalopnik. Thought it was an interesting take.
http://jalopnik.com/decade-long-federal-plan-to-replace-highway-sign-font-m-1757227026

[mjb2002]

I THINK this is breaking news...
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/01/25/2016-01383/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-the-manual-on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for?utm_campaign=subscription+mailing+list&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov

I believe there were rumblings before, but the notice was posted today, making it official.

That's bad news for brand new signs in Bamberg, Barnwell and Orangeburg counties in S.C. Bamberg just started installing proper case Clearview on their signs. Barnwell and Orangeburg both use Arial and Helvetica.

[J N Winkler]

A layman's opinion, from Jalopnik. Thought it was an interesting take.

http://jalopnik.com/decade-long-federal-plan-to-replace-highway-sign-font-m-1757227026

It is a not-bad effort at simplifying a complex technical issue for popular consumption.

FHWA has put materials related to the revocation on the MUTCD website (scroll down to the "Terminated" part):

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-interim_approvals.htm

The Technical Brief sheds a little more light on the motivation for the decision.  It is not closely written and (to me, anyway) is as clear as mud, but it does have citations to research reports that deal in more detail with many of the issues that came into play in the decision and have been mentioned in Clearview-related threads on this forum, such as the legibility disadvantage of Clearview digits.  Of interest to me is FHWA's suggestion that the initial research results in favor of Clearview were skewed by word recognition effects.  A proper experimental design would have addressed these confounders by using nonsense words or by treating them as blocking factors.  I don't recall that the TTI report (the one of the early reports that is actually available for download) described the experiments in that much detail, so I think someone at FHWA HOTO must have asked Hawkins' team for access to the original data.

[PurdueBill]

I wonder if any of the data-driven analysis noted in the technical brief will affect Meeker's hurt feelings where he said that Helen Keller could tell Clearview is better, even from the grave. 

I THINK this is breaking news...
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/01/25/2016-01383/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-the-manual-on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for?utm_campaign=subscription+mailing+list&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov

I believe there were rumblings before, but the notice was posted today, making it official.

That's bad news for brand new signs in Bamberg, Barnwell and Orangeburg counties in S.C. Bamberg just started installing proper case Clearview on their signs. Barnwell and Orangeburg both use Arial and Helvetica.

They don't have to take down Clearview signs immediately, but they should not specify any more, and when worn out, Clearview signs must be replaced with signs in the standard lettering.  With some places probably having design plans in processing/manufacturing with Clearview that may not be installed for a while, we'll probably see Clearview signage in the wild for a long time, just hopefully as a dwindling minority over time.

[Central Avenue]

I never quite understood why the roadgeek community seemed to have such an aversion to Clearview as a concept. The FHWA Series were designed at a time when button copy or non-reflective signs were the norm; it seems reasonable to me to say "what if we could make signs more legible by designing a font with modern reflective sheeting in mind?"

I find Clearview aesthetically pleasing, albeit not as much as the FHWA Series. Of course, even then, Interstate does the "Highway Gothic" aesthetic even better, when it comes to uses other than traffic signs.

As for legibility, I feel I never got a proper chance to judge for myself, since most Clearview signs in Columbus were directly replacing 20-year-old button copy. Obviously I'm going to find a shiny new retroflective sign easier to read at night than a decades-old button copy sign, regardless of what typeface is used.

[roadfro]

I never quite understood why the roadgeek community seemed to have such an aversion to Clearview as a concept. The FHWA Series were designed at a time when button copy or non-reflective signs were the norm; it seems reasonable to me to say "what if we could make signs more legible by designing a font with modern reflective sheeting in mind?"

I find Clearview aesthetically pleasing, albeit not as much as the FHWA Series. Of course, even then, Interstate does the "Highway Gothic" aesthetic even better, when it comes to uses other than traffic signs.

I can't speak for the entire roadgeek community, but I never had an aversion to the concept of Clearview and what it attempted to achieve. I think the ire mainly comes from botched implementation, primarily through a improper sign designs and a general lack of adherence to the interim approval guidelines.

Even though I wasn't the biggest fan of Clearview, I didn't *dislike* it to the degree that many did. In fact, I admit that there were some legibility bonuses when implemented correctly. But the rampant incorrect implementations and the lack of universal applicability (only approved for destinations on highway guide signs) was its downfall.


What would really be good at this point is to start seriously studying a transition from FHWA E(M), which was designed for button copy, to the proposed Enhanced E (FHWA E series font with E(M) spacing).

[Kacie Jane]

I can't speak for the entire roadgeek community, but I never had an aversion to the concept of Clearview and what it attempted to achieve. I think the ire mainly comes from botched implementation, primarily through a improper sign designs and a general lack of adherence to the interim approval guidelines.

I think you summarized most of my own feelings towards Clearview as well, most particularly your first line.  My problem isn't with Clearview as a font, it's with all the "behind the scenes" stuff that went on around it.

[mukade]

To me, there were a couple of things:
- The benefits seemed very hard to believe - even at the beginning. I thought I read articles questioning those claims years ago, and they now seem to be proven right.
- Some states spent massive amounts of money to replace a large portion of their signs with Clearview ones unnecessarily. At best, it was change for the sake of change, but it was really a gross waste of money in states like Michigan and Illinois. For states that replaced old signs with Clearview ones as needed (I think Kentucky was this way), it didn't matter to me as much.

In short, when I think of Clearview, I think of a huge waste of public funds.

[cl94]

- Some states spent massive amounts of money to replace a large portion of their signs with Clearview ones unnecessarily. At best, it was change for the sake of change, but it was really a gross waste of money in states like Michigan and Illinois.

You forgot Ohio. There are a bunch of Clearview signs that replaced retroreflective signs. Ohio dropped button copy in 2003-04.

[Quillz]

I never quite understood why the roadgeek community seemed to have such an aversion to Clearview as a concept. The FHWA Series were designed at a time when button copy or non-reflective signs were the norm; it seems reasonable to me to say "what if we could make signs more legible by designing a font with modern reflective sheeting in mind?"

I find Clearview aesthetically pleasing, albeit not as much as the FHWA Series. Of course, even then, Interstate does the "Highway Gothic" aesthetic even better, when it comes to uses other than traffic signs.

As for legibility, I feel I never got a proper chance to judge for myself, since most Clearview signs in Columbus were directly replacing 20-year-old button copy. Obviously I'm going to find a shiny new retroflective sign easier to read at night than a decades-old button copy sign, regardless of what typeface is used.

Updates for legibility were made to "Highway Gothic" as recently as 2000, to include lowercase letters and alter a few letterforms, among a few other minor things. E(M) existed for button copy, it really shouldn't be used for anything other than that. As noted, seems E with E(M) spacing will eventually become the standard for new signage.

[lordsutch]

Updates for legibility were made to "Highway Gothic" as recently as 2000, to include lowercase letters and alter a few letterforms, among a few other minor things. E(M) existed for button copy, it really shouldn't be used for anything other than that. As noted, seems E with E(M) spacing will eventually become the standard for new signage.

As far as I can tell, the only advocacy for Series E with E(M) spacing (aka EE(M)) has been spitballing by people on this board; I'm not even sure there's been any research beyond a few animated GIFs. Certainly it's something FHWA and others should consider, but we're a long way from it becoming any sort of standard.

[cl94]

Updates for legibility were made to "Highway Gothic" as recently as 2000, to include lowercase letters and alter a few letterforms, among a few other minor things. E(M) existed for button copy, it really shouldn't be used for anything other than that. As noted, seems E with E(M) spacing will eventually become the standard for new signage.

As far as I can tell, the only advocacy for Series E with E(M) spacing (aka EE(M)) has been spitballing by people on this board; I'm not even sure there's been any research beyond a few animated GIFs. Certainly it's something FHWA and others should consider, but we're a long way from it becoming any sort of standard.

Thank you. There really isn't much research out there and I don't see FHWA making any changes without a significant amount of research after what happened with Clearview.

[Pink Jazz]

Updates for legibility were made to "Highway Gothic" as recently as 2000, to include lowercase letters and alter a few letterforms, among a few other minor things. E(M) existed for button copy, it really shouldn't be used for anything other than that. As noted, seems E with E(M) spacing will eventually become the standard for new signage.

As far as I can tell, the only advocacy for Series E with E(M) spacing (aka EE(M)) has been spitballing by people on this board; I'm not even sure there's been any research beyond a few animated GIFs. Certainly it's something FHWA and others should consider, but we're a long way from it becoming any sort of standard.

ADOT's new signing plans call for plain Series E on freeways and expressways, and Series D on regular roads.  Apparently ADOT claims that this will achieve the same benefits as Clearview.  I wonder what will be the FHWA's stance on this.

As for EE(M), I have actually read that VDOT has actually shown some interest in the idea when they updated their policy on the proper use of Clearview.

[Scott5114]

Updates for legibility were made to "Highway Gothic" as recently as 2000, to include lowercase letters and alter a few letterforms, among a few other minor things. E(M) existed for button copy, it really shouldn't be used for anything other than that. As noted, seems E with E(M) spacing will eventually become the standard for new signage.

As far as I can tell, the only advocacy for Series E with E(M) spacing (aka EE(M)) has been spitballing by people on this board; I'm not even sure there's been any research beyond a few animated GIFs. Certainly it's something FHWA and others should consider, but we're a long way from it becoming any sort of standard.

There's been some research into it at the Texas Transportation Institute. EE(M) was included as a third option alongside traditional E(M) and Clearview. You can read the study at http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/TTI-2014-3.pdf .

[J N Winkler]

ADOT's new signing plans call for plain Series E on freeways and expressways, and Series D on regular roads.  Apparently ADOT claims that this will achieve the same benefits as Clearview.  I wonder what will be the FHWA's stance on this.

The MUTCD permits it.

Up until MUTCD 2003, agencies were required to use the FHWA alphabet series on signs and there was no letter case requirement.  This meant that in order to conform while using mixed-case lettering, Series E Modified was the only option.  Of course a few state DOTs and many, many local agencies nationally used vendor-supplied mixed-case alphabets and so were in technical violation for decades.  Wichita, for instance, has used mixed-case versions of Series B, C, and D on street name signs for as long as I can remember, and my memories go back to the late Carter administration.

Since MUTCD 2003, there have been FHWA-approved mixed-case versions of all the FHWA alphabet series, and FHWA does not require a particular series for any given application.  I objected to this when the rulemaking was in progress and suggested that Series E Modified be required for all mixed-case applications to establish a floor for legibility.  In the final rule notice, FHWA disagreed with me, saying that engineers could be trusted to choose the appropriate alphabet series for legibility.

Freeway guide signs have used mixed-case lettering for primary destination legend almost from the very beginning, but since the MUTCD does not absolutely require that the alphabet series used be Series E Modified, it is open to Arizona DOT to use even mixed-case Series B if it wishes, though of course that would be a legibility disaster.

MnDOT has been an interesting case.  The permissive policy with regard to mixed-case series other than Series E Modified has been in place for over 10 years now, but they kept right on using Series E Modified and ignoring the other mixed-case series.  Then in 2011 their state signing engineer, who had been in the position for decades and had a considerable amount of moral authority, died.  Now I am starting to see more and more MnDOT construction plans coming down the chute with mixed-case lettering in the more condensed series.  It is not a good look.

As for EE(M), I have actually read that VDOT has actually shown some interest in the idea when they updated their policy on the proper use of Clearview.

Caltrans has numerous examples, both in the field and on signing plans.  Frankly, I am unimpressed.

[jakeroot]

As for EE(M), I have actually read that VDOT has actually shown some interest in the idea when they updated their policy on the proper use of Clearview.

Caltrans has numerous examples, both in the field and on signing plans.  Frankly, I am unimpressed.

Washington has been dabbling with EE(M) as well. I think it looks better...

I objected to this when the rulemaking was in progress and suggested that Series E Modified be required for all mixed-case applications to establish a floor for legibility.  In the final rule notice, FHWA disagreed with me, saying that engineers could be trusted to choose the appropriate alphabet series for legibility.

Did you suggest using Series E Modified because it was the only logical, immediate choice at the time? Everything I've read thus far has indicated to me that Series E Modified exists only because of button copy, and its phase-out should have marked the end of E Modified.

To me, EE(M) is the next step, because it's like E(M) without the wide stroke for the buttons.

[J N Winkler]

Washington has been dabbling with EE(M) as well. I think it looks better...

Actually, the primary destination legend ("Berkeley St") is in Series E Modified.

I objected to this when the rulemaking was in progress and suggested that Series E Modified be required for all mixed-case applications to establish a floor for legibility.  In the final rule notice, FHWA disagreed with me, saying that engineers could be trusted to choose the appropriate alphabet series for legibility.

Did you suggest using Series E Modified because it was the only logical, immediate choice at the time? Everything I've read thus far has indicated to me that Series E Modified exists only because of button copy, and its phase-out should have marked the end of E Modified.

When that rulemaking was in progress, the only approved typefaces were Series B, C, D, E, F (all uppercase-only), and Series E Modified (mixed-case).  I recommended that Series E Modified should be the only mixed-case alphabet used because it had superior unit legibility to B, C, D, and E.  We still don't have published unit legibility values for the new mixed-case series.

Many state DOTs (including Caltrans, WSDOT, SDDOT, and MnDOT) had already chosen to use conventional-road guide signs with mixed-case Series E Modified.  MUTCD 2003 legalized this practice retroactively, and we would be in better shape if those state DOTs' example were the one that was followed.  However, at the time I was already aware that Georgia DOT was using a mixed-case Series D on freeway guide signs in lieu of the officially approved Series E Modified.  Notwithstanding the standing requirement to use only the FHWA series, I took a realistic view about the likely use of vendor-supplied mixed-case alphabets, and feared allowing mixed-case lettering without requiring it to be in Series E Modified would have the effect of legitimizing widespread use of these extended alphabets, legibility and font conformity be damned.  I didn't expect FHWA to come out with its own mixed-case alphabets.  That development came much later, in 2004 with the publication of the revised Standard Highway Signs, and was a complete surprise.

To me, EE(M) is the next step, because it's like E(M) without the wide stroke for the buttons.

It is a bit of a misconception that the alphabet we call Series E Modified was designed "for the buttons."  That was actually true only for original Series E Modified, which was uppercase only, and in California used for ground-mounted freeway guide signs that did have button retroreflectorization.  The lowercase letters that form the mixed-case alphabet we now call Series E Modified were originally in a completely different series that had lowercase letters only and was called (surprise!) Lowercase.  They were originally used only on overhead-mounted freeway guide signs, which had external illumination and no retroreflectorization; they were initially paired with Series D at a 3:2 uppercase/lowercase ratio.  Pairing with Series E Modified at the present 4:3 uppercase/lowercase ratio came later.

[jakeroot]

Washington has been dabbling with EE(M) as well. I think it looks better...

http://i.imgur.com/RWMvkWI.png

Actually, the primary destination legend ("Berkeley St") is in Series E Modified.

Nothing's more embarrassing than mis-identifying a font. I could have swore this was EE(M). It looked thinner.

<clipped>

Good read, JN. Thanks for the information. I figured there was more to the story behind E(M) than just the buttons, but frankly, I didn't know any better.

[machias]

For reference, here's a sign in Series E with Series Em spacing. I confirmed this with NYSDOT R4 shortly after the sign was put up. It wasn't designed this way on purpose, it just happened, but the engineer and I talked about it and she agreed that this looked better than the thicker Em lettering.

The way I understand it, Series Eem is pretty close to this. Correct?



NYSDOT R5 has a few signs with this type of lettering along I-86 in Chautauqua County and if memory serves correctly, one of them is on the overhead on the Chautauqua Lake Bridge along side a regular Em sign.

[dcbjms]

Looks about right, even with the modifications GSV does to the image.

[Zeffy]

The way I understand it, Series Eem is pretty close to this. Correct?

Yes. Here's that sign re-made using the Roadgeek 2014 Series EEM font:

[seicer]

To clarify, Em is the thicker variant, EEm is the slimmer variant? EEm looks far superior and the spacing/kerning nicely applied.

[ekt8750]

To clarify, Em is the thicker variant, EEm is the slimmer variant? EEm looks far superior and the spacing/kerning nicely applied.

Basically E has a "normal" stroke. Em has a thicker stroke and wider kerning (to compensate for the thicker stroke) compared to E and finally EEm takes the normal stroke of E and combines it with the wider kerning of Em and you get what you see above which IMO looks really good.

[wolfiefrick]

Zeffy, what are the RGB values for the shade of green you use in your signs? I believe it looks quite sharp.