The Clearview thread

[jzn110]

A side game:

If you live in a state that is religiously Clearveiw, what is the most recent FHWA installation you can think of? 

I live in Texas who is madly in love with Clearveiw, but there are still signs at the I-35-US-290/SH-71 interchange that are in FHWA and that intersection was completed (and new sign installation with it) in 2006.  In the Austin area at least, that's the newest signs I can think of that have FHWA font on them. Me thinks it's because they were ordered before the Clearveiw stuff happened and were sitting in the warehouse that long.

in Michigan, FHWA signs went up a few years ago as part of the reconstruction of I-75 near Pontiac.  There also were several individual FHWA replacement signs in various locations in the past two or three years.   I suspect Michigan very briefly switched back to FHWA and then back again to Clearview the instant it was reinstated, as J N Winkler noted above.

FHWA signs still get posted in some areas in Michigan where the signs are made by County or municipal road agencies. Everything I've seen on state roads lately has been Clearview.

[steviep24]

Vox just did a video on highway fonts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eky17clTEeQ

[JoePCool14]

A few comments off the top of my head after watching:

1. The map of which states use Clearview at 3:45 was... interesting. I didn't realize that Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, and California used Clearview. I don't know what Meeker and Associates considered "selective", but one thing is for sure: WisDOT does NOT use Clearview. At all. (Yes, I do know about some of the signs around Madison)

2. The example showing the same word in Clearview vs. Gothic didn't use appropriate kerning for the Gothic version. Not exactly a fair and accurate comparison.

3. At the end, they implied that Highway Gothic was more American because America is "blunt, stumbling, and loud". Okay.

4. The sign at 3:48 is right by my house. That's cool.

5. The comments under the video make me laugh.

[Scott5114]

It's worth noting that the guy they interviewed for that is Tobias Frere-Jones, a dude that's designed hundreds of fonts, including Gotham, Whitney (the Discord font), and Interstate, which is a modification/redrawing of Series E(M) for general non-signage design usage. Meaning this guy has personally sat down and spent a bunch of hours tinkering with Series E(M) himself. He doesn't work for Meeker & Associates, so I think he's as close as you can get to a neutral expert on the topic.

And of course, if you look at that example slide that doesn't use appropriate kerning for FHWA Series...guess which company provided it?

[Henry]

A few comments off the top of my head after watching:

1. The map of which states use Clearview at 3:45 was... interesting. I didn't realize that Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, and California used Clearview. I don't know what Meeker and Associates considered "selective", but one thing is for sure: WisDOT does NOT use Clearview. At all. (Yes, I do know about some of the signs around Madison)

FWIW, FL's use of Clearview is limited to the CFX expressway system, while the other highways still use Gothic. Caltrans has put up new signs on I-5 in Orange County showing Clearview (and also on street signs in a few cities), but the old Gothic signs are still around, perhaps forever since the Golden State is notoriously behind all the other states when it comes to sign modernization. As for NC, I believe that the usage of Clearview is limited to select municipalities, as all the freeways are still signed in Gothic.

[I-35]

Has Meeker publicly said anything since it has come out that the studies were skewed?  I assume it's fairly difficult to find his island in the Caymans, but if any journalist was in the area, it might be worth a side trip.

[Bobby5280]

The Vox video on the two highway typefaces was interesting.
Repeat of the YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eky17clTEeQ

I like it that they interviewed Tobias Frere-Jones for the docu-short. He is a bona fide expert on typography and one of the more talented type designers working today. IMHO, Gotham was the first highly successful typeface of the 21st century.

But there were other things they left out of the article. Frere-Jones pointed out a lot of the blunt quirks of "Highway Gothic" (aka Series Gothic). They didn't really get into how Frere-Jones cleaned up many of the letter forms in the Interstate type family he first designed thru Font Bureau. Just recently Font Bureau ended their short relationship with the Adobe Fonts service for Creative Cloud, pulling popular type families such as Interstate. But then Frere-Jones put Interstate back into the Adobe Fonts service via his own independent type foundry. A few other type designers have done the same thing.

Here is a bigger issue: the Highway Gothic vs Clearview Battle is 17 years old -and that's just going from when Clearview Highway earned interim approval. The typeface had been in development for years prior to that.

A lot has happened with type technology in the past 17 years. The OpenType format was a brand new thing when Clearview (which used older TrueType) was released. The OpenType format allows for much larger character sets. More recently the OpenType Variable standard debuted and now Variable Fonts are growing in popularity. Many of the best selling commercial fonts on the market offer variable versions in addition to standard "single instance" font files. OpenType SVG is an even newer standard.

Meanwhile the two existing highway sign typefaces are badly outdated, technologically speaking. The character sets of the various versions of Highway Gothic are minimal at best. Most industry-specific sign making applications are badly outdated with their type handling capabilities as well. That software isn't fundamentally any better in terms of type handling than a 30 year old copy of CorelDRAW. I work in the sign industry, but I do most of my vector-based design work within Adobe Illustrator CC and CorelDRAW 2021. Using "CAS" apps like Flexi is like stepping in a time machine back to the mid 1990's. I won't use a design application that isn't fully OpenType-aware.

These days when graphics people buy commercial type it is expected the typefaces offer a number of modern OTF-oriented features in greatly expanded character sets. One type family I bought recently, Coco Sharp by Zetafonts, has over 2000 glyphs per font file. Variable fonts is another item that raises the standards bar even higher. The last few type families I have purchased for work have all included variable fonts in the package. OTF Var fonts that include variable weight and width axes are more desirable. Coco Sharp is fairly unique; it's the first variable font I've seen to include a variable x-height axis (along with a weight axis).

That sort of gets back to the Clearview thing and why the legibility study was arguably flawed. Clearview obviously has a larger x-height than Series Gothic. If you set the same line of lettering in Clearview and Series Gothic, both with the same cap letter height, the line set in Clearview will take up more length on a sign panel. That doesn't let Series Gothic off the hook however; it still has lots of tight counters and tight bends that do harm legibility.

I think if the folks behind Clearview want the typeface to get full approval they need to go back to work on the designs and improve it further. That also means properly expanding the character set to include things like native small capitals, or fixing the fraction sets so they match cap letter heights. I don't know if they need to go as far as making a variable version of Clearview Highway. On the other hand, I can't see anyone going out of their way to buy Clearview Highway's "commercial" sister, Clearview One. Not with what else is in the commercial fonts marketplace. If they want commercial sales and popularity of Clearview One to improve they need to update it accordingly.

[hbelkins]

I was on US 52 between the Ashland bridge and OH 7 last weekend, and noticed that all the old button copy signage had been replaced with FHWA. Did Ohio not re-embrace Clearview?

[J N Winkler]

I was on US 52 between the Ashland bridge and OH 7 last weekend, and noticed that all the old button copy signage had been replaced with FHWA. Did Ohio not re-embrace Clearview?

I'm not seeing that they have.  I have automated download of all their design-bid-build construction plans for which the bid pamphlets list large panel sign quantities, and I can't see a single one that was pattern-accurate and didn't use the FHWA series.

[SkyPesos]

I was on US 52 between the Ashland bridge and OH 7 last weekend, and noticed that all the old button copy signage had been replaced with FHWA. Did Ohio not re-embrace Clearview?

ODOT switched back to FHWA at around 2018ish. The clearview signage from before then remained, but I guess they're done with it for new signage.

[ztonyg]

Examples of EE(m) signs?

I took a photo of this one on Wednesday. I snapped the photo quickly when I realized it was EE(m).

Arizona really likes EE(m) now. In my opinion it's better than Clearview but there are some horrible looking EE(m) signs out there. The new signage on Loop 101 at 7th St in Phoenix is particularly bad.

I wonder exactly how many states have gone back to using the FHWA fonts after the original IA was rescinded? As I see it, Clearview continues to be used in many different places today.

ADOT has chosen not to use Clearview, but is using Enhanced E Modified for freeway signs, Series D for regular roads, and Series C for street blades.

I noticed the new EE(m) signs along I-10 during my recent trip to Tucson (our relocation is at the end of March) and it looks really good. Honestly, when it comes to Clearview, Arizona and Texas are the only two states (in my experience, and I’ve been in all 50 states) that seem to do Clearview well. I have no issue with the way either state uses Clearview. Michigan and Illinois (outside of Chicago) also do quite well with Clearview.

But the EE(m) signs in Arizona look fantastic. Are other states adopting Enhanced E Modified?

Here's some bad Arizona Clearview for you. It's rare but it does / did exist. It was typically when ADOT tried to put Clearview on mileage distances:

This has to be one of the worst (if not the worst) signs I've ever seen Arizona install: https://goo.gl/maps/FYWfe8EAEEajXHpS6

Here's another one (that has now been replaced): https://goo.gl/maps/yqrAkAkF9UX4yQ1h9

Another bad Clearview sign (also now replaced): https://goo.gl/maps/zGKvk2fgkBdAkoWB9

Here's a slightly better but still bad Clearview sign: https://goo.gl/maps/bvbzxiPuBAup3gBz7

ADOT generally didn't use Clearview for mileage distances except in the area of the above links. Typically an Arizona Clearview sign with mileages looked like this: https://goo.gl/maps/AZUBSQagjYbKhVgj7

[JoePCool14]

@ztonyg - Those kinds of signs actually don't look that bad. Yes, they use Clearview incorrectly, but at least the text looks good. There's no weird kerning, no 3/4ths error, no stretching or compressing. Arizona has more than a few signs that look worse than your examples.

Those kinds of signs using all Clearview were par-for-the-course in several states for a while and still are in Texas and Michigan.

Regardless, when done correctly, EEM for the win!

[jakeroot]

(edit) ^^ I agree with JoePCool14 ... they're really not bad.

Here's some bad Arizona Clearview for you. It's rare but it does / did exist. It was typically when ADOT tried to put Clearview on mileage distances:

This has to be one of the worst (if not the worst) signs I've ever seen Arizona install: https://goo.gl/maps/FYWfe8EAEEajXHpS6

If that's bad for Arizona, you guys have it good!

If they increased the leading between lines 1 and 2, that would make it better IMO.

[kphoger]

This has to be one of the worst (if not the worst) signs I've ever seen Arizona install: https://goo.gl/maps/FYWfe8EAEEajXHpS6

If that's bad for Arizona, you guys have it good!

If they increased the leading between lines 1 and 2, that would make it better IMO.

Unless you want to exit at Bell Road or Princess Drive, because those exits are ?? miles away.

[ztonyg]

This has to be one of the worst (if not the worst) signs I've ever seen Arizona install: https://goo.gl/maps/FYWfe8EAEEajXHpS6

If that's bad for Arizona, you guys have it good!

If they increased the leading between lines 1 and 2, that would make it better IMO.

Unless you want to exit at Bell Road or Princess Drive, because those exits are ?? miles away.

Part of the problem with that sign is it doesn't really differentiate between the fact that there are actually 2 exists.

The first exit is for Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd and Bell Rd, the second exit is for Pima Road and Princess Drive.

[jakeroot]

Unless you want to exit at Bell Road or Princess Drive, because those exits are ?? miles away.

Part of the problem with that sign is it doesn't really differentiate between the fact that there are actually 2 exists.

The first exit is for Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd and Bell Rd, the second exit is for Pima Road and Princess Drive.

I wasn't totally sure where the distance was supposed to go when there are multiple streets for a single exit. I figured it was to the right of the bottom-most street. So in the sign, the first street was 1/2 mile away, and the next three streets are 2 miles away. But I didn't look at the freeway to figure it out on my own.

To be fair, WSDOT isn't a big user of distance signs, so I don't really know how they work. Should they be centered to the right of the streets when there are multiple lines?

Nevertheless, the distance sign is not an issue because of Clearview. So why it's in this thread, I don't know.

[kphoger]

This has to be one of the worst (if not the worst) signs I've ever seen Arizona install: https://goo.gl/maps/FYWfe8EAEEajXHpS6

If that's bad for Arizona, you guys have it good!

If they increased the leading between lines 1 and 2, that would make it better IMO.

Unless you want to exit at Bell Road or Princess Drive, because those exits are ?? miles away.

Part of the problem with that sign is it doesn't really differentiate between the fact that there are actually 2 exists.

The first exit is for Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd and Bell Rd, the second exit is for Pima Road and Princess Drive.

Then the sign is a total failure.

I interpreted the sign to mean one of two things:

(a) Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd ½ mile / Bell Rd & Princess Dr & Pima Rd 2 miles

(b) Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd ½ mile / Bell Rd ?? / Princess Dr ?? / Pima Rd 2 miles

It didn't even occur to me that it should be interpreted as the first two going together and the last two going together.  And this highlights exactly how the sign is a failure:  drivers shouldn't have to interpret anything when reading a sign.  The meaning should be blatantly obvious.

[stevashe]

Friendly reminder for everyone to post their thoughts on Clearview in a comment to FHWA on the new proposed MUTCD before 11:59 PM EST tomorrow! (Especially those of you that voted for the first option in the thread's poll  )

Link: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FHWA-2020-0001-0001

As a reminder, the proposed MUTCD limits Clearview usage to solely the destination text on Freeway and Expressway Guide Signs (aka BGSs).

Unless you want to exit at Bell Road or Princess Drive, because those exits are ?? miles away.

Part of the problem with that sign is it doesn't really differentiate between the fact that there are actually 2 exists.

The first exit is for Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd and Bell Rd, the second exit is for Pima Road and Princess Drive.

I wasn't totally sure where the distance was supposed to go when there are multiple streets for a single exit. I figured it was to the right of the bottom-most street. So in the sign, the first street was 1/2 mile away, and the next three streets are 2 miles away. But I didn't look at the freeway to figure it out on my own.

To be fair, WSDOT isn't a big user of distance signs, so I don't really know how they work. Should they be centered to the right of the streets when there are multiple lines?

Nevertheless, the distance sign is not an issue because of Clearview. So why it's in this thread, I don't know.

I've driven quite a bit in California, a very big user of distance signs, so I can say with confidence that it should be centered between the two lines, as shown in the picture below. I would agree that this has nothing to do with Clearview, however. It does look like the fraction might not be formatted correctly, though, which could possibly be blamed on Clearview if so, but I'm not sure.

[ztonyg]

@ztonyg - Those kinds of signs actually don't look that bad. Yes, they use Clearview incorrectly, but at least the text looks good. There's no weird kerning, no 3/4ths error, no stretching or compressing. Arizona has more than a few signs that look worse than your examples.

Those kinds of signs using all Clearview were par-for-the-course in several states for a while and still are in Texas and Michigan.

Regardless, when done correctly, EEM for the win!

I haven't seen a lot of terrible Arizona signs.

There's an EE(m) / Clearview mix: https://goo.gl/maps/s3gydMAjtCxeiJ1X7

[jakeroot]

There's an EE(m) / Clearview mix: https://goo.gl/maps/s3gydMAjtCxeiJ1X7

How was this not your nomination for worst sign in Arizona? That is awful.

I've driven quite a bit in California, a very big user of distance signs, so I can say with confidence that it should be centered between the two lines, as shown in the picture below. I would agree that this has nothing to do with Clearview, however. It does look like the fraction might not be formatted correctly, though, which could possibly be blamed on Clearview if so, but I'm not sure.

Yeah, the fraction isn't perfect. But not sure I'd blame Clearview there either.

Thanks for the info on distance signs. Centering makes the most sense to me.

[J N Winkler]

I've driven quite a bit in California, a very big user of distance signs, so I can say with confidence that it should be centered between the two lines, as shown in the picture below. I would agree that this has nothing to do with Clearview, however. It does look like the fraction might not be formatted correctly, though, which could possibly be blamed on Clearview if so, but I'm not sure.

I think pretty much every jurisdiction adheres to the rule that when an exit label spans two lines on an interchange sequence sign, the distance to that exit is centered vertically on those two lines.  However, some agencies (like TxDOT) use part- or full-width ruled lines to separate multiline labels and thus further reduce ambiguity.

As Kphoger and others have noted, this FLW Blvd./Bell Rd./Princess Rd./Pima Dr. interchange sequence sign is a design fail.

The fraction doesn't look right to my eye either.  I suspect overlarge numerals.

[PurdueBill]

I've driven quite a bit in California, a very big user of distance signs, so I can say with confidence that it should be centered between the two lines, as shown in the picture below. I would agree that this has nothing to do with Clearview, however. It does look like the fraction might not be formatted correctly, though, which could possibly be blamed on Clearview if so, but I'm not sure.

I think pretty much every jurisdiction adheres to the rule that when an exit label spans two lines on an interchange sequence sign, the distance to that exit is centered vertically on those two lines.  However, some agencies (like TxDOT) use part- or full-width ruled lines to separate multiline labels and thus further reduce ambiguity.

As Kphoger and others have noted, this FLW Blvd./Bell Rd./Princess Rd./Pima Dr. interchange sequence sign is a design fail.

The fraction doesn't look right to my eye either.  I suspect overlarge numerals.

Indeed, Texas has done that for a long time and it really cleans up things when there are more than one line of text for one exit on such a sign. 

e.g.,
My photo from 2001 on Steve's US 54 Texas page.

The terrible distance sign in Arizona would be equally bad in FHWA lettering as it is in Clearview; no typeface can save the layout there.  Needs some dividing lines or something!

[ztonyg]

I've driven quite a bit in California, a very big user of distance signs, so I can say with confidence that it should be centered between the two lines, as shown in the picture below. I would agree that this has nothing to do with Clearview, however. It does look like the fraction might not be formatted correctly, though, which could possibly be blamed on Clearview if so, but I'm not sure.

I think pretty much every jurisdiction adheres to the rule that when an exit label spans two lines on an interchange sequence sign, the distance to that exit is centered vertically on those two lines.  However, some agencies (like TxDOT) use part- or full-width ruled lines to separate multiline labels and thus further reduce ambiguity.

As Kphoger and others have noted, this FLW Blvd./Bell Rd./Princess Rd./Pima Dr. interchange sequence sign is a design fail.

The fraction doesn't look right to my eye either.  I suspect overlarge numerals.

Indeed, Texas has done that for a long time and it really cleans up things when there are more than one line of text for one exit on such a sign. 

e.g.,
My photo from 2001 on Steve's US 54 Texas page.

The terrible distance sign in Arizona would be equally bad in FHWA lettering as it is in Clearview; no typeface can save the layout there.  Needs some dividing lines or something!

Not to get too OT but that terrible distance sign in Arizona replaced a weird hybrid distance sign / EXIT ONLY sign: https://goo.gl/maps/25ay31KpiD99t3Kw6

[SkyPesos]

I've driven quite a bit in California, a very big user of distance signs, so I can say with confidence that it should be centered between the two lines, as shown in the picture below. I would agree that this has nothing to do with Clearview, however. It does look like the fraction might not be formatted correctly, though, which could possibly be blamed on Clearview if so, but I'm not sure.

I think pretty much every jurisdiction adheres to the rule that when an exit label spans two lines on an interchange sequence sign, the distance to that exit is centered vertically on those two lines.  However, some agencies (like TxDOT) use part- or full-width ruled lines to separate multiline labels and thus further reduce ambiguity.

As Kphoger and others have noted, this FLW Blvd./Bell Rd./Princess Rd./Pima Dr. interchange sequence sign is a design fail.

The fraction doesn't look right to my eye either.  I suspect overlarge numerals.

Indeed, Texas has done that for a long time and it really cleans up things when there are more than one line of text for one exit on such a sign. 

e.g.,
My photo from 2001 on Steve's US 54 Texas page.

The terrible distance sign in Arizona would be equally bad in FHWA lettering as it is in Clearview; no typeface can save the layout there.  Needs some dividing lines or something!

Not to get too OT but that terrible distance sign in Arizona replaced a weird hybrid distance sign / EXIT ONLY sign: https://goo.gl/maps/25ay31KpiD99t3Kw6

My guess would be that all three of those roads exit on the same lane from the mainline, and that it is a C/D lane. This guess may be wrong, but it's what makes the most sense to me for why the Exit Only plaque exists on there.

[stevashe]

I've driven quite a bit in California, a very big user of distance signs, so I can say with confidence that it should be centered between the two lines, as shown in the picture below. I would agree that this has nothing to do with Clearview, however. It does look like the fraction might not be formatted correctly, though, which could possibly be blamed on Clearview if so, but I'm not sure.

Yeah, the fraction isn't perfect. But not sure I'd blame Clearview there either.

Well, I remember a ways back in this thread it was mentioned that many state DOTs had a hard time getting the hang of designing proper fractions in Clearview, so it certainly could have played a part.