AARoads Forum

I actually like Series B a lot, but I think it is rarely applied in such a way that is aesthetically pleasing. I strongly dislike Series F, and have also rarely seen an instance where it was aesthetically acceptable.

Series B and C are my two favorites. I only really like the usage of Series D on interstate shields.

My favourite is either EM or C.

You should have EEM on the vote. I'd probably vote for that.

I used to really prefer the 'E' variant. It is wide and legible. It is also the default font on my computer for websites (I have an app that let's you change fonts on your browser) and on most sites it looks and reads nice. AARoads however I have it set to 'D'.

Now series D has really gained on me. It is still wide enough to be more legible, and is aesthetically pleasing, but it is also not too "bold" looking like 'E' is. I especially like how Georgia used to use 'D' on their freeway signage. Distance signs, other smaller signs and especially shields look nice in 'D'.

I'm not a fan of 'F'. It's too wide to be used nicely pretty much anywhere. Series 'C' is also fine (I like it in 3DI shields, which I know I'm in the minority on). I don't like it though on much of anything else to be honest. Some places here in Canada have a habit of using it in speed limit signs (I'm looking at you Quebec) and I think it's too narrow.

Series 'B' really only should be used for parking signs. I don't like it in shields, BGS's, or much of anything else. Example:

(https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5746/19962192354_2e3510e829_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wpZsjf)
Whoop-Up Drive eastbound approaching Scenic Drive (https://flic.kr/p/wpZsjf) by Sign Geek (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135438121@N07/), on Flickr

Series B and C, I think, work well when they are relatively large elements on narrow signs. For example, if a shield uses 10'' Series D, I might make an equivalent that uses 12'' Series B or C. (I really liked the "limitless" speed limit signs in Oregon that used larger Series C numerals). But with Series F... I just can't find any compromise that provides a nice balance of legibility and aesthetics.

I've actually never heard of EEM before. When did it first start to get used?

Isn't Series C the same variant that was once used on all of GDOT's signs? I thought that was a cool-looking font.

My favorite is probably plain Series E (not E-Modified).

Quote from: Quillz on January 10, 2017, 11:38:24 PM
I've actually never heard of EEM before. When did it first start to get used?

I don't think it is commonly used by any jurisdiction (as far as I know). EEM is like taking series E and using it at EM kerning. There are subtle differences, but it is more legible (top is EM, bottom is EEM):

(https://drscdn.500px.org/photo/192638851/m%3D900/68226f80cf6332962b4bd5475056812b)

Quote from: Henry on January 11, 2017, 10:30:57 AM
Isn't Series C the same variant that was once used on all of GDOT's signs? I thought that was a cool-looking font.

I believe that was series D.

Quote from: SignGeek101 on January 11, 2017, 10:51:27 AMI don't think it is commonly used by any jurisdiction (as far as I know). EEM is like taking series E and using it at EM kerning. There are subtle differences, but it is more legible (top is EM, bottom is EEM):

(https://drscdn.500px.org/photo/192638851/m%3D900/68226f80cf6332962b4bd5475056812b)

IIRC, some older (2000s) NJDOT installs along I-295 use EEM.  When I first saw such (didn't know the type designation back then); I thought that the lettering was more crisp & readable.

Since button-copy isn't coming back anytime soon; the need to use EM is no longer needed.  IMHO, using EEM is the best way to address readability issues associated w/non-button-copy EM without resorting to using a completely different font (Clearview).

It depends on the application.

For numeric use: D, B, C, E, F (in that order).
For mixed-case text: E (optionally with EM spacing), then EM, then D, with all others to be avoided.
For all-caps text: C, D, E, B, F (in that order).

I guess that would then make D the overall winner.

Quote from: Eth on January 11, 2017, 01:19:04 PM
It depends on the application.

For numeric use: D, B, C, E, F (in that order).
For mixed-case text: E (optionally with EM spacing), then EM, then D, with all others to be avoided.
For all-caps text: C, D, E, B, F (in that order).

I guess that would then make D the overall winner.

I agree.  Here's my "rankings"...

Numerals: D, E/E(m), all the rest
Mixed Case: E(m), E, D, all the rest
All Caps: E/E(m), D, C, all the rest

I like E for mixed-case text (especially with Em spacing). D is okay here, too, although the spacing needs to be adjusted to look right. Em is too thick, and as seen above, I think suffers in legibility. For capital text, though, E is too wide, so I prefer D or C. For numbers, I prefer D, but C is okay. F and B are right out in pretty much every case.

Quote from: SignGeek101 on January 10, 2017, 11:30:48 PM
Now series D has really gained on me. It is still wide enough to be more legible, and is aesthetically pleasing, but it is also not too "bold" looking like 'E' is. I especially like how Georgia used to use 'D' on their freeway signage. Distance signs, other smaller signs and especially shields look nice in 'D'.

This is what I get for not reading a previous post! GDOT did very well with its unique Series D signs; too bad it didn't spread to other states in this manner.

Quote from: Henry on January 11, 2017, 10:30:57 AM
Isn't Series C the same variant that was once used on all of GDOT's signs? I thought that was a cool-looking font.

The BGSes in Georgia were Series D, with a modified i, j and capital D (sometimes). I thought the Series D BGSes looked great. The Series D is different than the Series D used in some places today, but I saw the Georgia variant used elsewhere in the country (in much smaller applications) as early as 1975.

I've played around with the font over the years.
http://www.upstatenyroads.com/signshop19.shtml

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/314912/Greenville%20overhead2.png)