The Clearview thread

[adventurernumber1]

I'd say my stance has changed slightly on the Highway Gothic vs. Clearview debate over the past few years as I have learned more about it. Way earlier in this thread I think I had a more neutral stance, saying that I'm fine with both fonts and didn't exactly have a preference. Nowadays, my stance isn't that different, but now there is no doubt that I prefer the FHWA font. However, I don't hate Clearview so much that I wish a slow and painful death for its creator. I will sincerely say I do find it sad to see Clearview becoming the dominant font in many states, and used sporadically in others. I don't hate Clearview with a burning passion - I can tolerate it - but I prefer Highway Gothic. And with that said, I am glad my home state of Georgia is still a FHWA state.

[Bobby5280]

I, for one, cannot stand Georgia's big green signs on Interstate highways. Most states use Series E/M for sign legends, or perhaps Series E. Georgia had to go and be different, using a modified version of Series C. I hate how that looks. It's easy to see why Georgia DOT went with that policy: it's cheaper; sign backgrounds don't have to be nearly as wide as they would be using full width letters from Series D, E & E/M. The downside is Georgia's BGS's are not nearly as legible as they should be. There are penalties to pay in using a condensed-width typeface.

There are plenty of other practices I dislike in Interstate highway sign designs. I hate how California embeds exit tabs into the main panel of a BGS. That design practice only looks stupid. And so many of the BGS's in California are poorly composed. For a state that defined a lot of freeway innovations the signs they put on the freeways are pretty lousy.

People tee off on the Clearview typeface as if that's the main culprit in what's visually wrong with Interstate highway signs. The fault really isn't with the font, it's with people not knowing or not caring what they're doing with the font.

[jakeroot]

The fault really isn't with the font, it's with people not knowing or not caring what they're doing with the font.

Inb4 "Clearview makes it harder to design signs".

[Bobby5280]

Every single "difficulty" complaint people make about Clearview also exists in FHWA Series Gothic. Yeah, glyphs in Clearview like "B," "D," "P," and "R" have rounded tops that rise above the cap height line. Big deal. While those glyphs might be neatly squared off in FHWA Series Gothic, that typeface still has plenty of other capital letters with parts that rise above the cap height line and dip below the baseline (C, G, J, O, Q, S & U).

If you're using a sign industry specific design application, one that can set actual cap letter heights in inches, centimeters, etc. as well as position or align the letters in reference to the cap height then neither typeface poses any challenges in that regard. If you're using more mainstream software, such as CorelDRAW, to compose designs you have to use other methods. But those procedures are not difficult at all.

I design signs for a living using a growing library of typefaces. Thank God for Adobe and Typekit. That's one thing saving my company a good amount of money on font purchases (although we still buy a lot of type). For me Typekit is one of the things that really makes a $50 per month subscription to Creative Cloud worth it.

[JMoses24]

FHWA is making its way back to Ohio. About two weeks ago, I saw this on 4 south coming into Dayton. This was recently button copy. For whatever reason, they have replaced all signage on 75 and 4 to direct Children's Hospital traffic down Stanley Ave instead of the Troy St exit (the hospital is right next to the Troy St exit). The signs along 75 are also in FHWA but more normal (i.e., dedicated BBS saying "Dayton Children's Hospital EXIT 56" instead of slapping it atop the BGS).

I took a picture because at first I thought this was an example of Enhanced E Modified, but I later realized it's just E(M) with oddly wide spacing.

This install (recent, as in this past fall) suggests Clearview is not totally dead in Ohio. I believe these were ordered prior to the Interim Approval being revoked. Photo by me, 1/1/17.

[seicer]

All of the signing contracts for those phases were signed a long time ago, well before there was any hint of Clearview's Interim Approval being revoked and put back into place. You'll see a lot more pop up along I-75 as other phases come online.

[marleythedog]

Interestingly, the signs that just went up on I-71 at the Jeremiah Morrow Bridge are FHWA. I would've expected that contract's ink to have been well dried by the time the IA was revoked.

[Scott5114]

^ The DOT may have issued a change order after the contract was let. They were not required to, but it may have been a policy decision at the DOT level to do so for whatever reason.

[seicer]

The signs could have been fabricated long after. I know that the Clearview signs for the I-90/Innerbelt Bridge project were in storage for a long time (got a nice sneak peek).

[Pink Jazz]

I have been noticing that at freeway interchanges, Mesa, AZ has been lately replacing their older illuminated Helvetica street name signs with non-illuminated retroreflective signs in mixed case Highway Gothic Series D.  Mesa was one of the first cities in the Valley to use Clearview and is found in a lot of places within the city.  Apparently they were quick to get the memo about Clearview since I saw several street name signs in Highway Gothic go up last year.  I wonder if they will switch back if the interim approval is reinstated.

Perhaps Mesa could be in the process of phasing out the older pre-Clearview Helvetica signs that were used for signalized intersections.

[cl94]

I have been noticing that at freeway interchanges, Mesa, AZ has been lately replacing their older illuminated Helvetica street name signs with non-illuminated retroreflective signs in mixed case Highway Gothic Series D.  Mesa was one of the first cities in the Valley to use Clearview and is found in a lot of places within the city.  Apparently they were quick to get the memo about Clearview since I saw several street name signs in Highway Gothic go up last year.  I wonder if they will switch back if the interim approval is reinstated.

Perhaps Mesa could be in the process of phasing out the older pre-Clearview Helvetica signs that were used for signalized intersections.

I doubt the interim approval will be reinstated. It's an interim approval and new data suggested that it was inferior.

[hbelkins]

I doubt the interim approval will be reinstated. It's an interim approval and new data suggested that it was inferior.

I just wonder if the Clearview proponents won't lobby Congress to get use of the font enacted into law?

[Rothman]

I doubt the interim approval will be reinstated. It's an interim approval and new data suggested that it was inferior.

I just wonder if the Clearview proponents won't lobby Congress to get use of the font enacted into law?

Pfft.  No.

[Bobby5280]

Considering this process of improving traffic sign typefaces started around 20 years ago, the powers that be probably need to go back to the drawing board and come back with font files that aren't like outdated relics from the late 1980's. Type design and technology has come a long way since then. Both the highway typeface files and industry specific software that uses them badly needs to be updated.

[Scott5114]

The powers that be don't create the typeface files. They just release the glyphs in PDF form and corporations create the actual TTF/OTF files.

[Bobby5280]

Drawing just under 100 glyphs in PDF form (presumably using Adobe Illustrator or CorelDRAW) is arguably a haphazard approach to take in designing a typeface, especially one intended to use as font software. Unless the glyphs were designed with font metrics and dimensions in mind (overall font UPM size, defined unit sizes for ascender, descender, cap height and x-height) those glyphs will not transpose into font making software correctly. It usually works better to do all the design work within an app like FontLab Studio or Glyphs. Those applications have some features that can speed up the design process compared to what can be done within Illustrator. Font Lab Studio 6 looks very promising (it's currently in public beta).

[Scott5114]

They weren't intended to be used as font software, though. They were drawn in 1948 and originally specified as a series of dimensions (this is is X width, this arc is X degrees of a circle with Y radius, etc.)

The glyphs are public domain. Draw them up from the specs, or just use the existing glyphs from the PDF if you prefer. That's what the Roadgeek font creators did. Then take that, build an OTF, add all the fancy features you want, and sell them. If they're as necessary as you seem to believe, you should become exceedingly rich very quickly.

[Pink Jazz]

Here is information on a more recent study on Clearview:
http://agelab.mit.edu/news/jonathan-dobres-leads-award-winning-research-highway-sign-fonts

This study finds Clearview to be more legible in all cases, even in negative contrast orientation.

[kalvado]

Here is information on a more recent study on Clearview:
http://agelab.mit.edu/news/jonathan-dobres-leads-award-winning-research-highway-sign-fonts

This study finds Clearview to be more legible in all cases, even in negative contrast orientation.

Looking at the paper, I would say that best conclusion would be "it really makes so little difference"...

[jakeroot]

Here is information on a more recent study on Clearview:
http://agelab.mit.edu/news/jonathan-dobres-leads-award-winning-research-highway-sign-fonts

This study finds Clearview to be more legible in all cases, even in negative contrast orientation.

Looking at the paper, I would say that best conclusion would be "it really makes so little difference"...

Do you have a TRB account? I wasn't able to view the paper. There was some indication that a presentation was given at the TRB conference. Any users here see it?

The only thing I can see is the summary, which seems to indicate that Clearview performed better than Highway Gothic across the board.

I'm not sure how seriously this MIT study is to be taken, but it certainly doesn't seal Clearview's fate as a useless typeface that wasted millions. As someone who very publicly likes Clearview, I'm very interested to see where this goes.

[Revive 755]

Here is information on a more recent study on Clearview:
http://agelab.mit.edu/news/jonathan-dobres-leads-award-winning-research-highway-sign-fonts

This study finds Clearview to be more legible in all cases, even in negative contrast orientation.

I would like to see more info on this "laboratory-based assessment" that is supposedly better than actual signs on a test track.

[jakeroot]

Here is information on a more recent study on Clearview:
http://agelab.mit.edu/news/jonathan-dobres-leads-award-winning-research-highway-sign-fonts

This study finds Clearview to be more legible in all cases, even in negative contrast orientation.

I would like to see more info on this "laboratory-based assessment" that is supposedly better than actual signs on a test track.

It sounds worse, but it could be better. It's a more controlled environment. Doing studies outside isn't that great because you don't have much control over the environment (chiefly things like light levels and weather).

[J N Winkler]

Do you have a TRB account? I wasn't able to view the paper.

Paper (probably a prepress version) is here:

http://docs.trb.org/prp/17-04920.pdf

There is a line which suggests that Series E Modified would have done as well as Clearview 5-W if x-heights had been normalized (for Clearview this is 84% of capital letter height, while for the FHWA alphabet series it is 75%).  This is an old finding.  The main advance made by the authors of this paper is in methodology:  they used techniques that have been developed to test in-vehicle displays and do a better job of controlling for response time lag.

The only thing I can see is the summary, which seems to indicate that Clearview performed better than Highway Gothic across the board.

That is a very misleading way of putting it.  (I am not jumping on you--this is the fault of the abstract.)  The only typefaces they tested were FHWA Series E Modified, Clearview 5-W, and Clearview 5-B, the latter two being treated as aliased versions of the same basic typeface (the same concept behind Transport Medium for positive contrast, Transport Heavy for negative contrast, and the mythical, probably-never-actually-developed Transport Light for internally illuminated signs).  Series D (which the experimenters think is the "default" for negative-contrast applications; this is not actually true since B, C, E, and F are also fair game) was deliberately excluded on grounds that it would have unbalanced the experimental design and weakened the statistical analysis.

The authors seem to have been very much in the orbit of Meeker, who is mentioned in the acknowledgments.  Chrysler worked in the same TTI lab that did a couple of the first Clearview studies.

[SignGeek101]

I'm going to assume series EEM was not considered in this study...

[jakeroot]

The only thing I can see is the summary, which seems to indicate that Clearview performed better than Highway Gothic across the board.

That is a very misleading way of putting it.  (I am not jumping on you--this is the fault of the abstract.)  The only typefaces they tested were FHWA Series E Modified, Clearview 5-W, and Clearview 5-B

Not sure if you meant myself or the abstract when you say that it's misleading, but when I said "across the board", I meant in all cases where Clearview could be used, not that Clearview is superior when comparing similar weights.