The Clearview thread

[jakeroot]

Agencies trying to fight to have Clearview back would have a much stronger leg to stand on if it had been added to the 2009 MUTCD and then backed out in a subsequent issue.

As it stands, Clearview was added through a interim approval. In order to participate in the Clearview IA, the requesting agency had to agree to abide by §1A.10 of the 2003 MUTCD (most likely there is an equivalent section of the 2009 MUTCD, but the majority of the IAs were issued under the 2003 MUTCD). The relevant clause states:
...

Every IA participation request had to include an explicit agreement to comply with this segment. (For example, Oklahoma's IA request states "We further agree to comply with Item F at the bottom of Page 1A-6 of the 2003 MUTCD...") Every road agency who purchased a Clearview license knew what they were getting into.

This I already know. But the agencies who would like to continue using Clearview are fighting against, what is in their opinion, an inappropriate use of Clause F. No one's doubting that the FHWA has the absolute authority to do what they did. But individual agencies do have the right to disagree with the use of Clause F for ending Clearview's IA. The way I see it, all they have to prove is that the FHWA's final ruling was without merit. They'll have to prove that any recent studies showing Clearview to be worse are total rubbish and not to be believed; how'd they'd manage that, I'm not sure -- my opinion is still that agencies are only fighting against the ending of Clearview because of money lost, but I'm not sure that's an argument if Clause F is to be taken literally.

[vdeane]

I liken the dumping of Clearview to a hypothetical situation where the FHWA dumps the flashing yellow arrows (which could be done at any point without warning, apparently). Some states, like Oregon, have very few 5-section signals left. Basically the whole state is littered with FYAs. How would you feel if you were Oregon? Studies were showing all along the benefits of the FYA. Then, out of the blue, a study shows up that shows the FYA to be inferior to the 5-section signal, the FHWA pulls the plug, and you're left with a bunch of non-compliant signals. At the very least, you want your day in court. Even if it proves to be futile, you want to defend your investment.

The FHWA isn't requiring any signs to be replaced.  The Clearview signs can stay as long as they are otherwise serviceable, at which point, they would need to be replaced regardless of the status of Clearview.

[jakeroot]

The states should be going after Meeker and Associates for their propaganda surrounding the use of Clearview and their unreasonably high licensing fees. If they were really trying to make the roads safer by designing a new typeface, they should have designed, sought retribution for the design from the FHWA and then released it to the masses for free. They were trying to make a buck and they're now butt-hurt that the Federal Government saw through their ruse.  The states that went all crazy with something that had only an Interim Approval should be going after Meeker and Associates, not trying to get mediocrity passed off as a standard.

I don't agree with that. No state would be allowed to use Clearview if not for the FHWA. Once the FHWA gave Clearview its "blessing", if you will, they put themselves in a position to accept blow-back from any poor performance that was discovered over Clearview's lifetime.

[jakeroot]

I liken the dumping of Clearview to a hypothetical situation where the FHWA dumps the flashing yellow arrows (which could be done at any point without warning, apparently). Some states, like Oregon, have very few 5-section signals left. Basically the whole state is littered with FYAs. How would you feel if you were Oregon? Studies were showing all along the benefits of the FYA. Then, out of the blue, a study shows up that shows the FYA to be inferior to the 5-section signal, the FHWA pulls the plug, and you're left with a bunch of non-compliant signals. At the very least, you want your day in court. Even if it proves to be futile, you want to defend your investment.

The FHWA isn't requiring any signs to be replaced.  The Clearview signs can stay as long as they are otherwise serviceable, at which point, they would need to be replaced regardless of the status of Clearview.

There's more money invested than just into the Interim Approval "device". JN Winkler has a better idea of how this works than I do, but from what I've read, some states that switched to Clearview changed the way they build their signs, created new plans for signs, maybe changed the program for sign creation and created new algorithms for text placement, etc. FYA infrastructure also came with new infrastructure modifications. FYAs must be placed over the center of a lane. A five-section signal cannot be (AFAIK). If the FYA was discontinued, they would have to be replaced by protected-only signals, or the mast arm shortened to place the five section signal over the right edge of the lane. Both of those things being discontinued would result in money going up in flames immediately, especially if an area invested more heavily into the IA than another (either by switching signs to Clearview ahead of schedule, or switching five-section signals to FYAs before signal replacement was necessary).

[hbelkins]

The states should be going after Meeker and Associates for their propaganda surrounding the use of Clearview and their unreasonably high licensing fees. If they were really trying to make the roads safer by designing a new typeface, they should have designed, sought retribution for the design from the FHWA and then released it to the masses for free. They were trying to make a buck and they're now butt-hurt that the Federal Government saw through their ruse.  The states that went all crazy with something that had only an Interim Approval should be going after Meeker and Associates, not trying to get mediocrity passed off as a standard.

I don't agree with that. No state would be allowed to use Clearview if not for the FHWA. Once the FHWA gave Clearview its "blessing", if you will, they put themselves in a position to accept blow-back from any poor performance that was discovered over Clearview's lifetime.

And I disagree with that. FHWA is requiring states to use a certain font instead of letting them use any font they choose -- be it Clearview or Arial or Franklin Gothic.

[Revive 755]

I liken the dumping of Clearview to a hypothetical situation where the FHWA dumps the flashing yellow arrows (which could be done at any point without warning, apparently). Some states, like Oregon, have very few 5-section signals left. Basically the whole state is littered with FYAs. How would you feel if you were Oregon? Studies were showing all along the benefits of the FYA. Then, out of the blue, a study shows up that shows the FYA to be inferior to the 5-section signal, the FHWA pulls the plug, and you're left with a bunch of non-compliant signals. At the very least, you want your day in court. Even if it proves to be futile, you want to defend your investment.

The comparison does not work.  Flashing yellow arrows fully made it into the 2009 MUTCD, while Clearview, which had the interim approval granted back in 2004, remained as an interim approval.  It is a bit harder to dump a device once it is fully into the MUTCD.  A similar situation may exist with rectangular rapid flashing beacons, which are also still at the interim approval level, and may have not been adopted into the 2009 MUTCD due to FHWA wanting more studies with them.

FYA infrastructure also came with new infrastructure modifications. FYAs must be placed over the center of a lane. A five-section signal cannot be (AFAIK).

There are numerous agencies that would disagree with you on the second point, as there were and still are many five-section heads in front of left turn lanes.  As for the first part:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4d.htm#section4D13

If an exclusive left-turn, right-turn, or U-turn lane is present on an approach and if a primary separate turn signal face controlling that lane is mounted over the roadway, the primary separate turn signal face shall not be positioned any further to the right than the extension of the right-hand edge of the exclusive turn lane or any further to the left than the extension of the left-hand edge of the exclusive turn lane.

Also note that in the same section, having a five section head in front of a left turn lane is only guidance, not standard.

If the FYA was discontinued, they would have to be replaced by protected-only signals, or the mast arm shortened to place the five section signal over the right edge of the lane.

There is no prohibition on having a mast arm much longer than necessary if the farthest left head ends up being shifted to the right.  There's also an assumption that many agencies would not go back to having five-section heads in front of the turn lane.

[jakeroot]

The states should be going after Meeker and Associates for their propaganda surrounding the use of Clearview and their unreasonably high licensing fees. If they were really trying to make the roads safer by designing a new typeface, they should have designed, sought retribution for the design from the FHWA and then released it to the masses for free. They were trying to make a buck and they're now butt-hurt that the Federal Government saw through their ruse.  The states that went all crazy with something that had only an Interim Approval should be going after Meeker and Associates, not trying to get mediocrity passed off as a standard.

I don't agree with that. No state would be allowed to use Clearview if not for the FHWA. Once the FHWA gave Clearview its "blessing", if you will, they put themselves in a position to accept blow-back from any poor performance that was discovered over Clearview's lifetime.

And I disagree with that. FHWA is requiring states to use a certain font instead of letting them use any font they choose -- be it Clearview or Arial or Franklin Gothic.

The FHWA had to have been pretty impressed by Clearview to allow its use at all. Or, maybe there's something I don't know (maybe they were forced to permit Clearview? I'm pretty sure that PA and TX heavily pushed the FHWA to permit Clearview, but they still had final say).

[kphoger]

The states should be going after Meeker and Associates for their propaganda surrounding the use of Clearview and their unreasonably high licensing fees. If they were really trying to make the roads safer by designing a new typeface, they should have designed, sought retribution for the design from the FHWA and then released it to the masses for free. They were trying to make a buck and they're now butt-hurt that the Federal Government saw through their ruse.  The states that went all crazy with something that had only an Interim Approval should be going after Meeker and Associates, not trying to get mediocrity passed off as a standard.

I don't agree with that. No state would be allowed to use Clearview if not for the FHWA. Once the FHWA gave Clearview its "blessing", if you will, they put themselves in a position to accept blow-back from any poor performance that was discovered over Clearview's lifetime.

And I disagree with that. FHWA is requiring states to use a certain font instead of letting them use any font they choose -- be it Clearview or Arial or Franklin Gothic.

The FHWA had to have been pretty impressed by Clearview to allow its use at all. Or, maybe there's something I don't know (maybe they were forced to permit Clearview? I'm pretty sure that PA and TX heavily pushed the FHWA to permit Clearview, but they still had final say).

HB's point was a philosophical one.  He wants states to have more freedom in their signage practices (among other things).  His objection was not about Clearview or another font specifically, but rather the general ability of FHWA to disallow any font.

[kalvado]

The states should be going after Meeker and Associates for their propaganda surrounding the use of Clearview and their unreasonably high licensing fees. If they were really trying to make the roads safer by designing a new typeface, they should have designed, sought retribution for the design from the FHWA and then released it to the masses for free. They were trying to make a buck and they're now butt-hurt that the Federal Government saw through their ruse.  The states that went all crazy with something that had only an Interim Approval should be going after Meeker and Associates, not trying to get mediocrity passed off as a standard.

I don't agree with that. No state would be allowed to use Clearview if not for the FHWA. Once the FHWA gave Clearview its "blessing", if you will, they put themselves in a position to accept blow-back from any poor performance that was discovered over Clearview's lifetime.

And I disagree with that. FHWA is requiring states to use a certain font instead of letting them use any font they choose -- be it Clearview or Arial or Franklin Gothic.

The FHWA had to have been pretty impressed by Clearview to allow its use at all. Or, maybe there's something I don't know (maybe they were forced to permit Clearview? I'm pretty sure that PA and TX heavily pushed the FHWA to permit Clearview, but they still had final say).

I wouldn't be surprised if a small donation to the right  campaign account made it possible.

And while I agree that control of fonts may be a bit too harsh, I am pretty sure someone would use Comic Sans Serif the day after all limitations are lifted. Which may be a bit harsh...

[jakeroot]

The states should be going after Meeker and Associates for their propaganda surrounding the use of Clearview and their unreasonably high licensing fees. If they were really trying to make the roads safer by designing a new typeface, they should have designed, sought retribution for the design from the FHWA and then released it to the masses for free. They were trying to make a buck and they're now butt-hurt that the Federal Government saw through their ruse.  The states that went all crazy with something that had only an Interim Approval should be going after Meeker and Associates, not trying to get mediocrity passed off as a standard.

I don't agree with that. No state would be allowed to use Clearview if not for the FHWA. Once the FHWA gave Clearview its "blessing", if you will, they put themselves in a position to accept blow-back from any poor performance that was discovered over Clearview's lifetime.

And I disagree with that. FHWA is requiring states to use a certain font instead of letting them use any font they choose -- be it Clearview or Arial or Franklin Gothic.

The FHWA had to have been pretty impressed by Clearview to allow its use at all. Or, maybe there's something I don't know (maybe they were forced to permit Clearview? I'm pretty sure that PA and TX heavily pushed the FHWA to permit Clearview, but they still had final say).

HB's point was a philosophical one.  He wants states to have more freedom in their signage practices (among other things).  His objection was not about Clearview or another font specifically, but rather the general ability of FHWA to disallow any font.

Gotcha. In which case, I agree with HB. Highway Gothic is an ancient font that desperately needs work. Unless some serious work is put into it, states should be allowed to, at the very least, continue using Clearview, but also if interested, study/develop other typefaces. I genuinely don't see the benefit in having one, nationwide typeface. So many other things vary from state-to-state. The only important thing is legibility.

[kphoger]

And while I agree that control of fonts may be a bit too harsh, I am pretty sure someone would use Comic Sans Serif the day after all limitations are lifted. Which may be a bit harsh...

Quick and dirty Google search...



(It's a fake.)

[jakeroot]

The comparison does not work.  Flashing yellow arrows fully made it into the 2009 MUTCD

I was not aware of this. I was under the impression that it was still an interim approval, and was likely to be implemented into the next MUTCD, as a total replacement (in most circumstances) for the five section signal. I really wish the FHWA wouldn't list former interim approvals for historic purposes. Confused me (though my fault -- I wasn't reading close enough).

Anyways, I have no intent of responding to the rest of your post (it's no longer relevant, though it was a good bit of info).

[Bobby5280]

I'm holding out some hope perhaps some time in the future typefaces for traffic sign use will be properly modernized, as well as the software used to design them.

In terms of typography, both the fonts and the software have been very primitive. On top of that the problem was compounded when road signs were being designed by people who obviously had no talent for sign design. I have absolutely no sympathy at all over that last part, especially when the "designers" had all sorts of existing templates to use. They just had no talent for graphic design and no talent with computers either.

Clearview was a move forward in some respects, but I don't think it moved forward far enough. The old FHWA Series Gothic character set is laughably limited and primitive. Clearview has an extended Latin/European character set. Neither Clearview or old Series Gothic had a native small capitals character set, even though the MUTCD mandates large cap/small cap use on some items.

Sign making applications have been slow to adopt all of the features in OpenType font technology. Even CorelDRAW lagged badly in this regard, until just a few years ago when it finally offered full support at version X6 in 2012. Adobe Illustrator, InDesign and Photoshop fully implemented OpenType capability back in 2000.

Regarding design difficulties with Clearview, it all depends on app being used. Most sign industry specific design applications can accurately size, position and align letters according to cap letter height. I've done it with CASmate and FlexiSign Pro. It's also relatively easy to do with CorelDRAW.

In an app like CorelDRAW or Illustrator you can't type out an entire mixed case legend and then set an inch-based size. The cap letter heights won't be accurate. Portions of letters will dip below the baseline and rise above the cap height line. This is true of both Series Gothic and Clearview, but moreso with Clearview and some of its curvy cap letters. In CorelDRAW type out a letter "E" and set it at the desired size. You can position, align or do whatever with that object. Or you can copy its size attributes to other type objects. CorelDRAW will allow text objects to be aligned according to baseline. Anyway, if you know what you're doing it is very easy to properly and quickly compose a traffic sign layout regardless if it's Clearview or Series Gothic.

Adobe Illustrator is far more cumbersome to use for sign design because the application is still really only geared for design grids on a printed page. Type objects are contained in rectangular blocks. You can still get type objects set at an accurate inches-based size and positioned correctly, but the process involves more steps than in CorelDRAW. I've made numerous requests to Adobe in their Illustrator feature request forum to remedy this.

Regarding other typefaces, I think the federal government and state agencies should keep limits in place on what typefaces are used on traffic signs. Different typefaces have different levels of legibility. Most typefaces are far too flamboyant to be used on what is supposed to be a utilitarian style sign.

[cl94]

On the FYA topic, just because it was mentioned, FYAs were included in the 2009 MUTCD, while four-sections with bimodal arrows (common in New York, for example) were not. The three-section FYA with a bimodal remains an interim approval.

Nothing has been made public as far as whether five-sections will be removed from the manual. I can ask around at TRB, but I don't think they'll be going anywhere in the near future. Massachusetts has announced plans to replace all state-owned five-section signals with FYAs and NYSDOT has been moving toward replacing left-turn doghouses with FYAs, but the latter still has left-turn doghouses in new contracts.

As far as the FHWA listing old interim approvals, they keep IAs that were issued under the previous edition up for historical purposes. Basically, they're kept up there so agencies know to refer to the manual's guidance instead of the IA.

[machias]

In terms of typography, both the fonts and the software have been very primitive. On top of that the problem was compounded when road signs were being designed by people who obviously had no talent for sign design. I have absolutely no sympathy at all over that last part, especially when the "designers" had all sorts of existing templates to use. They just had no talent for graphic design and no talent with computers either.

I keep reading that the FHWA letters are primitive. This is mind boggling to me. We all do understand that they're not fonts and shouldn't be treated as fonts, correct? They're lines and curves. They were designed specifically for conveying messages on road signs, along a very specific set of guidelines, in a legible manner.  The only shapes available in the "font" are the shapes that are required to meet those guidelines.

Do fellow road geeks believe that people are running off the roads, weeping on the shoulders and that chaos is gripping our transportation network because the letters on the road signs look "primitive"?  Yes, manufacturing methods of changed and we no longer have metal letters with reflectors embedded in them, but the shape of the lettering used is recognizable, passes many legibility tests and has withstood the test of time.

Road signs are not graphic design projects. They are engineering projects. I know that folks like to make really cute looking road signs on their computers with all sorts of software in hopes of being the Next Greatest Thing for Transportation, but the fact of the matter is, FHWA legend with proper letter placement and spacing is all that you need. If folks took the time to lay out a sign properly on any standard CAD program instead of relying on these mediocre software packages that do nothing but save money with mediocre at best results, signs would have a consistent look and convey their intended messages as expected.

Modify Series E(m) to use a thinner stroke (Series E(em)) and the problem is solved.

In addition, this practice of adding more and more and more legend to signs and moving elements (exit tabs) around and highlighting words (LEFT EXIT) and installing gigantic signs with outrageously large arrows (APL) and using different letter forms on the same sign panel and loading up the sign with graphics is getting ridiculous.

    ROUTE 98
      Batavia
EXIT 48   1 MILE

It doesn't get any easier than that to understand. Stopping changing things for the sake of change and KISS.

[DaBigE]

In terms of typography, both the fonts and the software have been very primitive. On top of that the problem was compounded when road signs were being designed by people who obviously had no talent for sign design. I have absolutely no sympathy at all over that last part, especially when the "designers" had all sorts of existing templates to use. They just had no talent for graphic design and no talent with computers either.

I keep reading that the FHWA letters are primitive. This is mind boggling to me. We all do understand that they're not fonts and shouldn't be treated as fonts, correct? They're lines and curves. They were designed specifically for conveying messages on road signs, along a very specific set of guidelines, in a legible manner.  The only shapes available in the "font" are the shapes that are required to meet those guidelines.

Do fellow road geeks believe that people are running off the roads, weeping on the shoulders and that chaos is gripping our transportation network because the letters on the road signs look "primitive"?  Yes, manufacturing methods of changed and we no longer have metal letters with reflectors embedded in them, but the shape of the lettering used is recognizable, passes many legibility tests and has withstood the test of time.

Road signs are not graphic design projects. They are engineering projects. I know that folks like to make really cute looking road signs on their computers with all sorts of software in hopes of being the Next Greatest Thing for Transportation, but the fact of the matter is, FHWA legend with proper letter placement and spacing is all that you need. If folks took the time to lay out a sign properly on any standard CAD program instead of relying on these mediocre software packages that do nothing but save money with mediocre at best results, signs would have a consistent look and convey their intended messages as expected.

Modify Series E(m) to use a thinner stroke (Series E(em)) and the problem is solved.

In addition, this practice of adding more and more and more legend to signs and moving elements (exit tabs) around and highlighting words (LEFT EXIT) and installing gigantic signs with outrageously large arrows (APL) and using different letter forms on the same sign panel and loading up the sign with graphics is getting ridiculous.

    ROUTE 98
      Batavia
EXIT 48   1 MILE

It doesn't get any easier than that to understand. Stopping changing things for the sake of change and KISS.

   

As I've said before and as you have just reiterated, there are ways the current FHWA series can be modified to fix the minor issues it has. Just because you don't like the design/function of a room or two in your house, do you bulldoze the entire house and start from scratch? No, unless the rest of the house has major flaws, you fix-up just what's wrong. Modify all the stroke widths and/or modify the letters a, e, and o. Find a better way to delineate L from l from I (for the few times context clues don't tell you which letter is meant). Design any other characters that happen to be missing. Problem solved without reinventing the wheel, in addition to probably a whole lot less time/money/heartache.

[jakeroot]

Apparently you both missed this massive point in Bobby's post. It's more than just the age of the font.

Clearview has an extended Latin/European character set. Neither Clearview or old Series Gothic had a native small capitals character set, even though the MUTCD mandates large cap/small cap use on some items.

The FHWA font family needs an update to include Latin/European characters, as well as native small capitals. Non-native small capitals have narrower strokes, because the sign designer took a larger character and shrunk it down. This is most evident when you see a cardinal direction (image via Pop. Mechanics). Notice how the small capitals are narrower strokes? Each letter should have the same stroke width:

I keep reading that the FHWA letters are primitive. This is mind boggling to me.

Well, since the Highway Gothic font was first developed, it hasn't kept up with the changes being asked of it. That sort of puts it in the "primitive" category, especially when you compare it to a newer typeface, which might have dozens of different fonts within it.

Road signs are not graphic design projects. They are engineering projects. I know that folks like to make really cute looking road signs on their computers with all sorts of software in hopes of being the Next Greatest Thing for Transportation, but the fact of the matter is, FHWA legend with proper letter placement and spacing is all that you need. If folks took the time to lay out a sign properly on any standard CAD program instead of relying on these mediocre software packages that do nothing but save money with mediocre at best results, signs would have a consistent look and convey their intended messages as expected.

Signs are graphic design projects. You can't put them in some special category, just because they relate to the heavily-standardised system that is the MUTCD. It still takes the eye of a graphic designer to make the sure the sign is laid out in the most efficient manner possible. And I'd be willing to be that, if we replaced most sign engineers with graphic designers that are MUTCD-trained (whatever that means), you'd see a lot less poorly-laid-out signs and goofs. Just a guess, though.

In addition, this practice of adding more and more and more legend to signs and moving elements (exit tabs) around and highlighting words (LEFT EXIT) and installing gigantic signs with outrageously large arrows (APL) and using different letter forms on the same sign panel and loading up the sign with graphics is getting ridiculous.

    ROUTE 98
      Batavia
EXIT 48   1 MILE

It doesn't get any easier than that to understand. Stopping changing things for the sake of change and KISS.

You have to be kidding me. Name one thing in the MUTCD that was changed without reason.

[kphoger]

As I've said before and as you have just reiterated, there are ways the current FHWA series can be modified to fix the minor issues it has. Just because you don't like the design/function of a room or two in your house, do you bulldoze the entire house and start from scratch? No, unless the rest of the house has major flaws, you fix-up just what's wrong.

I get what you're saying.  But this is not a house.  Why not explore whether scrapping the FHWA series and starting from the ground up can make for something even better?  We've discussed how Clearview has made things difficult–but that's a problem with Clearview, not necessarily trying something new in general.  If something new were even more legible than a modified FHWA series and just as easy to work with in the design process, then how would that not be a win-win?

Or how about this?  If you don't like the design/function of your bicycle, you could install better derailleurs, a new cassette for optimal gear ratios, less-awkward pedal clips, more appropriate tires, a more comfortable saddle, and your preferred shifting system.  And if you really dig working on bicycles or have an emotional connection to that particular bicycle, that's probably what you'll do.  But maybe it's worth looking into getting a whole new bike.

[kalvado]

The FHWA font family needs an update to include Latin/European characters, as well as native small capitals. Non-native small capitals have narrower strokes, because the sign designer took a larger character and shrunk it down. This is most evident when you see a cardinal direction (image via Pop. Mechanics). Notice how the small capitals are narrower strokes? Each letter should have the same stroke width:

I have to agree, first letter in "North"/"South"  often looks disproportional. But that is more about gradual improvement than anything else. I don't know how much font update would cost, but probably less than a mile of interstate highway...
True, there are no unicode symbols in the font - but there is not too much demand for those within US as well.

As for graphic design.. My impression is that many designers are willing to sacrifice functionality for better appearance, which is a bad approach for the road....

[machias]

You have to be kidding me. Name one thing in the MUTCD that was changed without reason.

Why do we need all of these extra characters for the FHWA letters? Abbreviations aren't suppose to have a period. There are a handful at most of words that have natural accent marks in them. There is no movement to adopt multilingual signs on the highways of the U.S.

Ask any motorist why the exit tab on a guide sign is shoved to the right hand side. Heck, there many installations where the installers didn't know why the exit tab is on the right side and put it on the left.

The purpose of a sign is to convey a message as accurately and as legibly as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. It's not suppose to be pretty. It's not suppose to have attractive fonts. It's suppose to have LEGIBLE fonts and a layout that conveys the message as quickly as possible. Cluttering up signs with multiple fonts and an overabundance of colors and graphics just slows down comprehension time.

[Scott5114]

The FHWA font family needs an update to include Latin/European characters, as well as native small capitals. Non-native small capitals have narrower strokes, because the sign designer took a larger character and shrunk it down. This is most evident when you see a cardinal direction (image via Pop. Mechanics). Notice how the small capitals are narrower strokes? Each letter should have the same stroke width:

It does have native small capitals. Try using a capital in Series E with the small caps in Series EM. Assuming you follow the height ratio the MUTCD prescribes, the stroke widths come out exactly the same. Astonishing.

Of course, that has to be set manually and doesn't happen if you just use the small-caps function in X software program, but it's there.

Road signs are not graphic design projects. They are engineering projects. I know that folks like to make really cute looking road signs on their computers with all sorts of software in hopes of being the Next Greatest Thing for Transportation, but the fact of the matter is, FHWA legend with proper letter placement and spacing is all that you need. If folks took the time to lay out a sign properly on any standard CAD program instead of relying on these mediocre software packages that do nothing but save money with mediocre at best results, signs would have a consistent look and convey their intended messages as expected.

Signs are graphic design projects. You can't put them in some special category, just because they relate to the heavily-standardised system that is the MUTCD. It still takes the eye of a graphic designer to make the sure the sign is laid out in the most efficient manner possible. And I'd be willing to be that, if we replaced most sign engineers with graphic designers that are MUTCD-trained (whatever that means), you'd see a lot less poorly-laid-out signs and goofs. Just a guess, though.

I've kind of come to the same conclusion. I think that perhaps the best approach would be to have an engineer and a graphic designer working in tandem, with the designer laying the sign out to be visually appealing and the engineer checking compliance with legibility requirements and such. A graphic designer may not fully grasp all of the nuances of translating a graphic design to the "real world", and an engineer probably doesn't grasp the rules of design nearly as well.

I imagine this sort of thing happens in commercial graphics all the time as well. I'm sure there's instances where designers come up with really neat looking stuff that looks great in Illustrator but is totally impractical to actually print. Anyone who uses consumer software has probably run into a design that looks really slick but is a total chore to actually use for getting anything useful.

[Scott5114]

Allocating government resources to develop a FHWA Series version of the Cherokee alphabet would be a questionable use of public funds. Cherokee signage is a novelty that mostly serves a promotional purpose, not a serious wayfinding tool. It would be a nice gift to the Cherokee Nation by a private designer or hobbyist, or something that might the Cherokee Nation or city of Tahlequah could develop. But to have the FHWA develop it and include it in the MUTCD would probably be something that would end up on one of those "government boondoggle" lists.

(On the side note of Native American languages on road signs: as far as I know this is the only Chickasaw road sign that has been posted. You'd think there would be more, considering the Chickasaw Nation's tendencies toward promoting their culture, and the fact that their language is written entirely in the Latin alphabet. At the Chickasaw Cultural Center in Sulphur.)

[hbelkins]

It shouldn't take a graphic designer nor an engineer to lay out a sign.

[1995hoo]

And while I agree that control of fonts may be a bit too harsh, I am pretty sure someone would use Comic Sans Serif the day after all limitations are lifted. Which may be a bit harsh...

Quick and dirty Google search...



(It's a fake.)

Heh. Take a look at the fake sign at the link below (it's there precisely to make a point):

http://www.typographyforlawyers.com/what-is-typography.html

[Bobby5280]

Road signs are not graphic design projects. They are engineering projects. I know that folks like to make really cute looking road signs on their computers with all sorts of software in hopes of being the Next Greatest Thing for Transportation, but the fact of the matter is, FHWA legend with proper letter placement and spacing is all that you need. If folks took the time to lay out a sign properly on any standard CAD program instead of relying on these mediocre software packages that do nothing but save money with mediocre at best results, signs would have a consistent look and convey their intended messages as expected.

Signs, whether they're for commercial businesses or for things like traffic control, should have proper visual design. If they're poorly designed they visually pollute the outdoor landscape. A lot of people designing signs (including customers making design choices) don't realize the responsibility they have to the outdoor environment.

Signs stand there in the outdoor environment either looking good or looking terrible for years. You can throw a badly designed piece of junk mail or some other printed material in the trash and forget about it. Poorly designed graphics on TV or the Internet don't stick around for long. But signs can potentially stand in one place for decades getting viewed by drivers countless numbers of times. They should be something better than the equivalent of a giant turd on a big metal stick.

It does have native small capitals. Try using a capital in Series E with the small caps in Series EM. Assuming you follow the height ratio the MUTCD prescribes, the stroke widths come out exactly the same. Astonishing.

I have never seen a FHWA Series Gothic font file that had native small capital characters in its character table, much less the other important features it is missing. I've opened these font files in Font Lab Studio and found only a very basic character set.

Next, the hack of proportionately scaling capital letters up or down to fake a small caps look just does not work. If you scale down the letter size the width of the letter stroke also proportionately scales down as well. It does not remain the same stroke width. The only way to do small capitals correctly is using a typeface that has such characters specifically designed for that purpose.

Some people might think a font has small capitals in it by virtue of quick and dirty small cap functions in computer software. Unless a font has native small capitals drawn in its character set the software will just do the fake small caps scaling hack. The hack never comes out looking right. Faking small caps isn't as bad as some other typographical sins like writing in call caps using a script typeface or squeezing/stretching type to fit a certain space. But it's still not professional.