The Clearview thread

Started by BigMattFromTexas, August 03, 2009, 05:35:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Which do you think is better: Highway Gothic or Clearview?

Highway Gothic
Clearview

jakeroot

Quote from: cl94 on April 12, 2017, 08:32:31 PM
There have been far more than 3 studies....the research either way has been inconclusive...I'm completely open to adopting Clearview - IF we can get a decent amount of impartial studies showing it is better. We haven't yet.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 12, 2017, 11:54:56 PM
The most recent study was done by MIT (IIRC) and just involved people reading text on monitors. I'm sure it goes without saying why that's not an accurate representation of actual field conditions.
...
the most thorough study showed that FHWA Series E-Modified performed slightly better than Clearview, and that Enhanced E-Modified (Series E glyphs with E(M) spacing) performed the best of all three.

Okay, I'm pretty confused.

cl94 states that there have been far more than three studies on Clearview, and that the results have been inconclusive. Scott, you seem to indicate there have only been three studies, and (subjectively) the only one worth its weight came out in favour of Series E (or EE(M)).

Personally, I don't think the MIT study was worthless or inaccurate. Lab testing is just as important as field testing (field testing often has too many uncontrollable variables that can skew results).


Scott5114

I am only aware of three studies. There may be more that I don't know about.

Lab testing is important, but when you get to the point that you are deploying the font in active signage, you need field tests that adequately reflect the situation on the ground. In the case of Clearview specifically, one of its selling points was that it countered the effects of halation, and tests on a computer screen do not adequately measure that.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

MNHighwayMan

Quote from: Big John on April 12, 2017, 10:45:31 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 12, 2017, 07:57:57 AM

But if it does ever make a comeback, there will be one thing I will always be adamantly opposed to: using it for digits on route markers. I will write some very angry, sternly-worded letters peppered with vague hints of violence towards DOT property if that were to ever happen. ;-)

(Yes I know Clearview was never used/approved for that purpose, you don't need to tell me)

Michigan, photo by AlpsRoads.


Please tell me that wasn't a widespread practice. :-|

cl94

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 13, 2017, 05:47:57 AM
I am only aware of three studies. There may be more that I don't know about.

Lab testing is important, but when you get to the point that you are deploying the font in active signage, you need field tests that adequately reflect the situation on the ground. In the case of Clearview specifically, one of its selling points was that it countered the effects of halation, and tests on a computer screen do not adequately measure that.

Lab testing can done in a method that adequately studies motion. That study wasn't done in a manner that simulated motion in a realistic way.

A quick search is giving me at least 300 different papers from multiple studies. Over half were from PA or TTI, neither of which are impartial in any way. There hasn't been enough independent research, nor is it a hot topic outside of the places funding it. We need at least 10 times the independent research to form a conclusion. Until then, there are probably more than enough signs in existence to use for research.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

PurdueBill

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2017, 11:09:51 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on April 12, 2017, 08:54:24 PM
Agencies showed that they largely can't handle doing it right, so FHWA finally gave up and took the toys away.

Yes, yes. They've decided to punish the states for not playing right.

This isn't primary school, Bill. The FHWA doesn't take the "toys away" for not following along. They simply ask for states to do better next time. They *can* punish states in the form of redacting federal funds, but since Clearview was experimental from the beginning, I'd be very surprised to see the FHWA go that route.

If a state decided to start using blue freeway signs, I could see the FHWA pulling federal funds. But putting Clearview in a route shield? That doesn't even deserve a slap on the wrist.

It was a metaphor, not something literal.

FHWA did make clear in the discontinuation that the marked decrease in sign quality and all the problems with too-small margins, Clearview in inappropriate uses, etc. (especially at the local level where the state DOT doesn't monitor stuff but the approval covered all agencies in a state) was a huge problem brought on by Clearview with no sign of stopping.  They used the word "metastasized" which demonstrated that FHWA's opinion was that Clearview implementation as-was was causing a lot of trouble, so it had to be stopped, at least for the time being.

FHWA did see enough trouble with Clearview in route shields to specifically call out and shame it on their FAQ site--it is not appropriate and they shouldn't look the other way.

Scott5114

We have bill text now. Unlike many bills, it's readable by humans. Like many bills, it has a cheesy acronym.

Quote from: H.R. 2029
A BILL

To require the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration to issue a final rule that approves the use of Clearview font for positive contrast legends on guide signs, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the "Safe Innovative Guide signs for the Nation Act"  or the "SIGN Act" .

SEC. 2. Clearview font permitted for positive contrast legends on guide signs.

(a) In general.–Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration shall issue a final rule that approves the use of Clearview font on positive contrast legends on guide signs. Such rule shall also be reflected in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD).

(b) Other fonts.–The rule issued pursuant to subsection (a) shall not require the use of such font but allows a jurisdiction to use the Clearview font or any other font approved by the Department of Transportation.

(c) Memorandum.–Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and notwithstanding the notice on January 25, 2016, in the Federal Register terminating the Interim Approval (IA—5) of provisional use of an alternative lettering style for positive contrast legends on guide signs and the memorandum issued by the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation Operations on January 28, 2016, regarding such termination, a jurisdiction may use Clearview font for such guide signs.

It doesn't state any penalty for non-compliance. Not that it's likely, but I wonder what would happen if the FHWA Administrator simply failed to act within the specified time period?
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

myosh_tino

Hmmm... sounds like another case where politicians think they know more than scientists and/or researchers.  :rolleyes:
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

hbelkins

Quote from: lordsutch on April 12, 2017, 10:26:39 PMFHWA can either hope that the states and Congress go away, get overruled in the next transportation bill, or decide discretion is the better part of valor and issue an NPM to permanently authorize Clearview or reissue the IA. My guess is they'll pick door #3 once a permanent administrator is in place who's empowered to make such decisions, since in general bureaucratic agencies don't pick fights with powerful members of Congress over low-stakes issues because in the end they normally lose.

Quote from: myosh_tino on April 18, 2017, 03:01:44 AM
Hmmm... sounds like another case where politicians think they know more than scientists and/or researchers.  :rolleyes:

I guess this is the thing that bugs me about much of this discussion. Who works for whom? It's the job of the executive branch to implement the directives of the legislative branch. Not the other way around. If Congress mandates the federal government to sign national parks with blue letters on hot pink signage with yellow borders, who is FHWA to say otherwise? The people (taxpayers) are supposed to run the government through the directives of their elected officials. The government isn't supposed to be a self-sustaining bureaucracy, although that's what it has become.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Rothman

Pfft.  Congress has granted USDOT a lot of latitude in handling transportation funding and management.  I have no problem with Congress laying out a broader legislative mandate and the funding (as it has through Title 23) while leaving the specifics to executive branch regulations.

When Congress gets involved with the specifics, you end up with I-99. 
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Scott5114

Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2017, 03:23:04 PM
I guess this is the thing that bugs me about much of this discussion. Who works for whom?

Neither of them work for the other. The three branches of government are equal. They all work for the people.

QuoteThe people (taxpayers) are supposed to run the government through the directives of their elected officials.

Do you suppose that the people of TX-3 have been overrunning Sam Johnson's office clamoring for this bill?
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

jakeroot

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2017, 03:12:17 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2017, 03:23:04 PM
The people (taxpayers) are supposed to run the government through the directives of their elected officials.

Do you suppose that the people of TX-3 have been overrunning Sam Johnson's office clamoring for this bill?

Probably not. But Mr Johnson has to make decisions that he believes will benefit his district. In his eyes, this bill benefits not only his district, but the entire US.

Scott5114

Quote from: jakeroot on April 23, 2017, 03:33:28 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2017, 03:12:17 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2017, 03:23:04 PM
The people (taxpayers) are supposed to run the government through the directives of their elected officials.

Do you suppose that the people of TX-3 have been overrunning Sam Johnson's office clamoring for this bill?

Probably not. But Mr Johnson has to make decisions that he believes will benefit his district. In his eyes, this bill benefits not only his district, but the entire US.

Why does Mr Johnson feel he is more qualified to make that determination than an engineer?
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

hbelkins

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2017, 06:04:33 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 23, 2017, 03:33:28 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2017, 03:12:17 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2017, 03:23:04 PM
The people (taxpayers) are supposed to run the government through the directives of their elected officials.

Do you suppose that the people of TX-3 have been overrunning Sam Johnson's office clamoring for this bill?

Probably not. But Mr Johnson has to make decisions that he believes will benefit his district. In his eyes, this bill benefits not only his district, but the entire US.

Why does Mr Johnson feel he is more qualified to make that determination than an engineer?

Because Mr. Johnson is empowered to make such determinations via the Constitution of the United States. Elected officials, rather than engineers (or economists or just about any other profession you can imagine) are the ones who are acknowledged in our governing document as having that power.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

jakeroot

Quote from: hbelkins on April 23, 2017, 11:54:08 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2017, 06:04:33 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 23, 2017, 03:33:28 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2017, 03:12:17 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2017, 03:23:04 PM
The people (taxpayers) are supposed to run the government through the directives of their elected officials.

Do you suppose that the people of TX-3 have been overrunning Sam Johnson's office clamoring for this bill?

Probably not. But Mr Johnson has to make decisions that he believes will benefit his district. In his eyes, this bill benefits not only his district, but the entire US.

Why does Mr Johnson feel he is more qualified to make that determination than an engineer?

Because Mr. Johnson is empowered to make such determinations via the Constitution of the United States. Elected officials, rather than engineers (or economists or just about any other profession you can imagine) are the ones who are acknowledged in our governing document as having that power.

Indeed. They are often called "representatives" for a reason: they represent the opinions of their constituents. I'm not totally sure who asked Sam Johnson to write a bill that reinstates Clearview, but he's obliged to follow through with that request if he feels that it's in his district's best interest.

hbelkins

Quote from: jakeroot on April 23, 2017, 02:08:24 PM
Indeed. They are often called "representatives" for a reason: they represent the opinions of their constituents. I'm not totally sure who asked Sam Johnson to write a bill that reinstates Clearview, but he's obliged to follow through with that request if he feels that it's in his district's best interest.

Probably Meeker or his firm, or perhaps Texas DOT since they are so heavily invested in Clearview. At any rate, this is probably the epitome of special interest legislation. I honestly don't think anyone besides roadgeeks are going to care what font is used on a highway sign. My guess is the majority of drivers didn't even notice when Clearview started showing up. They don't have this odd sentimental attachment to the old font that so many roadgeeks do. We noticed because that's who we are.

This really isn't like the newspaper business, where customers get used to a certain appearance of the product and readily notice changes. During my years as a newspaper editor, I was involved in a handful of redesigns. People did notice if we had a new headline font, new byline style, etc., but they still sought the same information.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

vdeane

I don't like Clearview because the signs are ugly.  There are some jurisdictions like Vermont and Québec that make it look good, but the vast majority do not.

As for elected officials, I have never seen a case of micromanagement that turned out well.  At best, we get I-99; on the other hand, we could also get a NYC subway system closed for snow that never fell.  IMO elected officials should limit themselves to the overall direction (if they can even do that well; given the recent track record, count me skeptical) and leave the details to the people who actually know what they're doing.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

MNHighwayMan

Quote from: vdeane on April 23, 2017, 06:15:21 PM
IMO elected officials should limit themselves to the overall direction (if they can even do that well; given the recent track record, count me skeptical) and leave the details to the people who actually know what they're doing.

That's not just an opinion, that's how the government is supposed to function. Legislatures set a general goal with their legislation, and specific departments and other governmental bureaus determine and do all the micro-level implementation of the legislation.

jakeroot

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 23, 2017, 07:31:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 23, 2017, 06:15:21 PM
IMO elected officials should limit themselves to the overall direction (if they can even do that well; given the recent track record, count me skeptical) and leave the details to the people who actually know what they're doing.

That's not just an opinion, that's how the government is supposed to function. Legislatures set a general goal with their legislation, and specific departments and other governmental bureaus determine and do all the micro-level implementation of the legislation.

Parties define a goal, but it's up to legislators to pass specific legislation to reach that goal.

As far as legislation itself, most of it is pretty specific. It's more likely to pass when the legislature knows what it is that they're voting on.

MNHighwayMan

Perhaps "general" was the wrong word to use. What I mean is, legislatures craft legislation to get things done. For example, a legislature passes a bill to build a road, and the governor/president signs it into law. That bill will say generally where it is to be built, and for what general purpose and/or capacity, but it's not going to specify lane widths or places for drainage culverts or specify the signage required. That's what specialized departments (in this case, the DOT) are for. The departments are what make those decisions; they ensure proper implementation of the legislation.

This is why a bill explicitly requiring/allowing a certain typeface to be used on signs is silly. That's something that should be left to the departments, who are full of engineers and specialists whose expertise is better suited to making such decisions.

J N Winkler

It is not really tenable to argue that Congress can't pass a law requiring FHWA to approve a certain typeface family for use on highway signs.  However, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that in so doing, Congress breaches an institutional norm in favor of leaving technical decisions to engineers in the permanent administration, trusting that they will make their choices in the public interest and on the basis of careful study of the various options, using decision-making tools such as cost-benefit analysis.

This is admittedly an idealized view of how things are to work.  Back in 1958, green was chosen as the background for guide signs not on the basis of controlled legibility testing, but rather through a glorified popularity contest.  And in this particular case we are focusing on Clearview versus the FHWA series, a controversy which is dwarfed by the fact that FHWA's mixed-case requirement amounts to a loophole allowing agencies to use mixed-case Series B on freeway guide signs, without regard to its unit legibility.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

MNHighwayMan

#1470
I'm not arguing whether or not Congress has the ability–it totally does. They pretty much have total free reign. What I'm arguing is whether or not it's a good idea (I don't think it is), and whether or not it's appropriate for Congress to descend into such nitty-gritty details like highway sign typefaces (I think that's a total waste of Congressional time and effort.)

Pink Jazz


Quote from: J N Winkler on April 23, 2017, 09:28:45 PM

Back in 1958, green was chosen as the background for guide signs not on the basis of controlled legibility testing, but rather through a glorified popularity contest.


However, note that the human eye is most sensitive to green and yellow wavelengths.  This may have some effect on the legibility of signs compared to other background colors.

J N Winkler

Yup.  If the elephant wants to stick his trunk into the tent, there's not a lot we can do about it other than try to persuade him that there are better uses for his time.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 23, 2017, 10:21:11 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 23, 2017, 09:28:45 PMBack in 1958, green was chosen as the background for guide signs not on the basis of controlled legibility testing, but rather through a glorified popularity contest.

However, note that the human eye is most sensitive to green and yellow wavelengths.  This may have some effect on the legibility of signs compared to other background colors.

The 1958 study didn't get into those human-factors issues.  It was literally an exercise in having people drive past signs with blue, green, and black backgrounds, and asking them which color they liked the best.  The popularity of green was actually a frustration to Bertram Tallamy (then BPR head) at a personal level, since he had a visual impairment that made it difficult for him to read white text on green background.  (He was previously head of the NYS Thruway, which at the time had blue signs.)
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

jakeroot

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 23, 2017, 10:27:54 PM
The popularity of green was actually a frustration to Bertram Tallamy (then BPR head) at a personal level, since he had a visual impairment that made it difficult for him to read white text on green background.

I guess that begs the question: is there a similar visual impairment for white-on-blue?

Scott5114

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 23, 2017, 09:51:12 PM
I'm not arguing whether or not Congress has the ability–it totally does. They pretty much have total free reign. What I'm arguing is whether or not it's a good idea (I don't think it is), and whether or not it's appropriate for Congress to descend into such nitty-gritty details like highway sign typefaces (I think that's a total waste of Congressional time and effort.)

This is more or less another way of putting of what I am arguing above.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.