The Clearview Subject

Started by ethanhopkin14, July 11, 2013, 02:01:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

myosh_tino

#200
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 18, 2014, 02:25:49 AM
Relevant MUTCD chapter and verse is 2A.13¶4:
QuoteWord messages should not contain periods, apostrophes, question marks, ampersands, or other punctuation or characters that are not letters, numerals, or hyphens unless necessary to avoid confusion.

Rationale is not given, but I would assume it's because the elements are small enough that they distract rather than aid comprehension at speed. It is probably along the same lines as USPS standards that require dropping punctuation and diacritics, as well.

To be fair, the statement you quoted from the MUTCD is a guidance statement rather than a standard statement.  The use of the apostrophe is discouraged rather than prohibited.
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.


J N Winkler

I interpret the MUTCD provision as discouraging punctuation but not diacritical marks, on the basis that the composite of bare letter character and diacritical mark is itself a letter.  There are certainly plenty of placenames in the US (Peña Blvd., Española, etc.) where letters with diacritical marks are an essential part of the standard spelling.

In regard to apostrophes in placenames, the US Board of Geographical Names has a policy in place that discourages the use of possessive case in registered names, although some exceptions exist and the BGN has approved versions of some placenames both with and without apostrophe (for example, some registered placenames include "Martha's Vineyard" while others include "Marthas Vineyard").  Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, apparently.
"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

Bobby5280

Quote from: Scott5114Right, but the FHWA fonts were designed by the American government for American road signs. It's not likely that they would find it a good use of time and money to develop bells and whistles that the font's target audience is barred from using.

The American government might want to clue itself into the reality the United States is home to a LOT of people, places and things that are spelled using diacritics above the characters. Here in Lawton we have a lot of German residents and a rapidly growing Latino community. Both German and Spanish languages make frequent use of diacritic elements.

The traffic sign people should be glad they don't have to mess with Asian language type. I sometimes have to design signs using Korean or Chinese characters. That isn't easy to do when one doesn't speak/read either of those languages and has to go off handwritten notes from the customer. I'm just thankful I at least have OpenType fonts and applications that properly support OpenType so I don't have to create every glyph by hand.

QuoteBack on the topic of Clearview: Even if it dies, which seems likely, this probably isn't the end of typeface legibility improvement proposals. Eventually someone will learn from what Clearview did well and what it did poorly and draw another typeface that purports to improve on the old font. And FHWA will have what it learned from Clearview and be able to test it more thoroughly before approving it. So the next big font will probably have a marked improvement over both FHWA Series and Clearview before we ever see it.

Aside from all the testing and re-testing of the fonts, why don't they have a features list of what the typeface needs to do correctly before it is even designed?

For instance, since the FHWA insists on all caps treatment for cardinal directions, but with a larger capital letter, they should mandate a native set of small capitals included in each typeface weight along with the standard upper and lower case character sets. The current method of merely enlarging the first letter is graphic design stupidity. Such improvements would also involve making vendors of traffic sign making software to update the font handling of their applications to 21st century standards.

vtk

From an idealist graphic design standpoint, that makes a fair amount of sense.  But how's the execution going to work? FHWA isn't likely going to get funding under this Congress to develop a fancy new typeface, whether it's done in-house or by a paid design firm.  And the feds don't typically demand specific things of an industry for free unless there's a pressing public safety concern.

Here's a practical idea for the cardinal directions large initial letter issue you keep bringing up: use Series E for the first letter and EM for the rest of the word, in about a 9:8 size ratio.  That's the way I'd do it if I were writing the MUTCD.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

Bobby5280

Development of an up to date traffic sign type family doesn't necessarily have to be a government funded effort, or even controlled by the government for that matter. There are numerous type foundries and independent type designers who could craft a contemporary family that both looks better and functions better than FHWA Series Gothic and Clearview Highway.

The market for these kinds of typefaces is bigger than just traffic control signs. They can figure into way-finding sign systems in special urban districts, school & office campuses, hospitals, shopping centers, sports venues or any other large area that needs a sign system. Series Gothic isn't often used for these purposes since it's an arguably ugly, dated typeface and has a very limited set of features. Clearview has been used in some of these purposes, like the sign system within Dallas Fort Worth International Airport. Again, its feature limits and high cost relative to those limited features have prevented a lot of commercial sign companies from adopting it. A type family superior to FHWA Series Gothic and Clearview with a proper set of OpenType features would likely get a lot more use. There would be more bang for the buck.

jbnv

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 19, 2014, 09:47:47 AM
Development of an up to date traffic sign type family doesn't necessarily have to be a government funded effort, or even controlled by the government for that matter. There are numerous type foundries and independent type designers who could craft a contemporary family that both looks better and functions better than FHWA Series Gothic and Clearview Highway.

This really isn't complicated.

1. FHWA publishes a list of rules and requirements for fonts designed to be used for highway and roadway signage.
2. Private developers develop fonts and submit them to FHWA for approval.
3. FHWA approves or rejects the submitted fonts.
4. States and local jurisdictions select from the approved fonts.

The cost to the taxpayer is essentially nil (it should be essentially the cost of FHWA now). Pretty much everyone can agree that this is a proper function of government and a proper balance between government regulation and free enterprise.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

DaBigE

Quote from: jbnv on May 19, 2014, 10:26:31 AM
This really isn't complicated.

1. FHWA publishes a list of rules and requirements for fonts designed to be used for highway and roadway signage.
2. Private developers develop fonts and submit them to FHWA for approval.
3. FHWA approves or rejects the submitted fonts.
4. States and local jurisdictions select from the approved fonts.

The cost to the taxpayer is essentially nil (it should be essentially the cost of FHWA now). Pretty much everyone can agree that this is a proper function of government and a proper balance between government regulation and free enterprise.

There's something I am missing here...how is the cost "essentially nil?" Are said private developers creating these fonts out of the goodness of their hearts? Sure, there would probably be a competition similar to defense product development (e.g., the Humvee replacement), but the winner(s) ultimately end up getting paid via a contract for production. Creating and properly testing a font doesn't come cheap.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

jakeroot

Quote from: DaBigE on May 19, 2014, 12:09:59 PM
There's something I am missing here...how is the cost "essentially nil?" Are said private developers creating these fonts out of the goodness of their hearts? Sure, there would probably be a competition similar to defense product development (e.g., the Humvee replacement), but the winner(s) ultimately end up getting paid via a contract for production. Creating and properly testing a font doesn't come cheap.

For some graphic designers, seeing their font across all road signs would be reward enough. Also, I've edited jbnv's list:

1. FHWA publishes a list of rules and requirements for fonts designed to be used for highway and roadway signage.
2. Private developers develop fonts and submit them to FHWA for approval.
3. FHWA tests fonts for real-world use ($$)
4. FHWA selects best font from tested fonts


You could always outsource the testing. Of course, that would be like outsourcing IIHS crash testing.

J N Winkler

In response to DaBigE's last post, I'd also query two assumptions:  first, that the typeface standards "need" to change, and second, that typeface R&D will continue unabated when the Clearview interim approval is withdrawn.

In regard to the first assumption, I think the failure both of Clearview and of parallel type experiments like the Georgia Font will instead prompt agencies to design around the limitations of the existing FHWA alphabet series.  Georgia has gone in this direction by junking the Georgia Font in favor of 20" UC/15" LC Series E Modified.  Clearview was heavily marketed as a way to continue using 16" UC mixed-case lettering for primary destination legend instead of moving up to 20" UC/15" LC Series E Modified, but now that Clearview is on the way out, I suspect many more agencies will just bite the bullet and put in the larger trusses they need to accommodate 20" UC/15" LC, using a prioritization system to front-load benefits and spread the expense out in time by upgrading critical locations first.

There are two reasons for this.  First, making the signs bigger is the "blue chip" way to help older drivers.  Second, once FHWA revokes the Clearview interim approval, many agencies will come out of the experience feeling that they were sold a bill of goods by the Clearview developers, and won't want to let another group of type designers take them to the cleaners again.

In regard to the second assumption, I think the failed experiment with Clearview and the things that came with it--the long-drawn-out ten-year partial phase-in, and the probably even longer phase-out that is to come--has already poisoned the well for the bodies (such as the TCD pooled fund study) that are responsible for allocating funding for further research into highway sign typefaces.  Clearview offered legibility benefits that are now increasingly felt to have been oversold and caused a mess when deployed through standard state DOT production channels--not just in terms of sizing issues on signing plans and on as-installed signs, but also in terms of guide signing left half-upgraded for extended periods of time.  The other reasons offered for continued type research, such as the development of a true small-caps set, make sense to graphic designers but won't convince traffic engineers working in a production environment.

Bottom line:  agencies won't want to take a chance on another debacle like Clearview, and this will focus funders' attention on spot improvements that save lives as opposed to innovations that require systemwide rollout in order to achieve benefits that are fairly small at the margin.
"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

J N Winkler

Quote from: jake on May 19, 2014, 12:55:12 PMFor some graphic designers, seeing their font across all road signs would be reward enough.

It's definitely an ego boost, but for the Clearview developers it wasn't enough.  Despite their promise to relinquish IP claims if the typefaces were adopted nationally (a promise which they made in order to grease the wheels for the FHWA interim approval), they have continued to profit from the fonts.

Despite the foregoing paragraph, though, I don't personally believe that developer profiteering is the primary problem with Clearview.  To my mind, the main problem is that it is difficult to deploy, requires systemwide changes in order to maintain uniform appearance of guide signs, and Clearview 5-W (the most legible of the Clearview typefaces) provides at best a small improvement over FHWA Series E Modified since the latter is already probably quite close to the outer frontier of technological possibility in terms of unit legibility.

QuoteAlso, I've edited jbnv's list:

1. FHWA publishes a list of rules and requirements for fonts designed to be used for highway and roadway signage.

2. Private developers develop fonts and submit them to FHWA for approval.

3. FHWA tests fonts for real-world use ($$)

4. FHWA selects best font from tested fonts

Jbnv has presented his scheme as a reasonable "third way" between the state and private enterprise, but I don't see it finding any takers.  Why create a local option in highway sign typefaces when the MUTCD already requires uniformity and there is no professional constituency in favor of local option per se (as opposed to a different type family, such as Clearview, for eventual rollout as a compulsory national standard)?  And now that Clearview has blown up in everyone's faces, who is going to fund the R&D?  This isn't the eighteenth-century chronometer competition--the winner of a typeface face-off is not going to be a transformative innovation, even in the narrow world of highway sign design.

QuoteYou could always outsource the testing. Of course, that would be like outsourcing IIHS crash testing.

Pretty much all of the development and testing of Clearview was outsourced.
"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 May 19, 2014, 01:33:20 PM
QuoteYou could always outsource the testing. Of course, that would be like outsourcing IIHS crash testing.

Pretty much all of the development and testing of Clearview was outsourced.


J N Winkler

Really.  Pennsylvania Transportation Institute--not part of FHWA.  Texas Transportation Institute--not part of FHWA.  Meeker and Associates--not part of FHWA.

This gets to another point in support of the unlikelihood of FHWA sponsoring a type competition:  Clearview was wished on it in the first place.  And now that Clearview has failed, FHWA now has fresh arguments it can cite in resisting rollout of new standard typefaces:  they must not only be better than the existing FHWA series, they must also be hit-it-out-of-the-park better.
"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 May 19, 2014, 02:12:47 PM
Really.  Pennsylvania Transportation Institute--not part of FHWA.  Texas Transportation Institute--not part of FHWA.  Meeker and Associates--not part of FHWA.

Just so we are clear, Ron's reaction after looking down was me realizing that you are correct.  :D

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 19, 2014, 02:12:47 PM
This gets to another point in support of the unlikelihood of FHWA sponsoring a type competition:  Clearview was wished on it in the first place.  And now that Clearview has failed, FHWA now has fresh arguments it can cite in resisting rollout of new standard typefaces:  they must not only be better than the existing FHWA series, they must also be hit-it-out-of-the-park better.

The FHWA needs to learn the art of refinement.

J N Winkler

Quote from: jake on May 19, 2014, 02:43:25 PMJust so we are clear, Ron's reaction after looking down was me realizing that you are correct.  :D

Thanks--I wasn't sure I had understood the intended meaning, so I played it straight.

QuoteThe FHWA needs to learn the art of refinement.

Apropos of this point, I think the likeliest direction for future type development--if any is undertaken--is the "Series E with Series E Modified spacing" concept.  It is already used (without, as far as I am aware, explicit official approval) in California, it looks similar enough to Series E Modified not to set off the pipe-and-slippers brigade, it has more open counters to fight halation, and TTI has already done a study on it.
"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

jbnv

Quote from: DaBigE on May 19, 2014, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 19, 2014, 10:26:31 AM
The cost to the taxpayer is essentially nil (it should be essentially the cost of FHWA now).
There's something I am missing here...how is the cost "essentially nil?" Are said private developers creating these fonts out of the goodness of their hearts? Sure, there would probably be a competition similar to defense product development (e.g., the Humvee replacement), but the winner(s) ultimately end up getting paid via a contract for production. Creating and properly testing a font doesn't come cheap.

Try reading and comprehending the entire post before responding. "The cost to the taxpayer is essentially nil." I wasn't talking about the development cost of the fonts.

Since you mentioned it, yes, people can and do develop stuff for free.

Quote from: jake on May 19, 2014, 12:55:12 PM
3. FHWA tests fonts for real-world use ($$)
4. FHWA selects best font from tested fonts


You miss the point of my suggestion. FWHA sets the requirements based on what we have learned over decades of transportation. The market, not the government, determines what is the "best" font.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 19, 2014, 01:33:20 PM
... the main problem is that it is difficult to deploy, requires systemwide changes in order to maintain uniform appearance of guide signs ...

And thus hardly anybody uses it. Maybe if one or two states adopted it, that difficulty would be resolved.  :pan:

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 19, 2014, 01:33:20 PM
... the MUTCD already requires uniformity ...

Which is obeyed with absolute compliance across all 50 states and their component jurisdictions.  :pan:

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 19, 2014, 01:33:20 PM
And now that Clearview has blown up in everyone's faces, who is going to fund the R&D?

Anyone who thinks they can profit from the endeavor. (See #2 in my list.) And if there are no such parties, then we ultimately end up with one font that everyone uses.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

jakeroot

#215
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 19, 2014, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: jake on May 19, 2014, 02:43:25 PMJust so we are clear, Ron's reaction after looking down was me realizing that you are correct.  :D

Thanks--I wasn't sure I had understood the intended meaning, so I played it straight.

I shouldn't use so many gifs.  :biggrin:

Quote from: jbnv on May 19, 2014, 03:48:55 PM
Quote from: jake on May 19, 2014, 12:55:12 PM
3. FHWA tests fonts for real-world use ($$)
4. FHWA selects best font from tested fonts


You miss the point of my suggestion. FWHA sets the requirements based on what we have learned over decades of transportation. The market, not the government, determines what is the "best" font.
JN Winkler already cleared up for me previously that a third party determines the best font. Sorry. :cheers:

DaBigE

Quote from: jbnv on May 19, 2014, 03:48:55 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on May 19, 2014, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 19, 2014, 10:26:31 AM
The cost to the taxpayer is essentially nil (it should be essentially the cost of FHWA now).
There's something I am missing here...how is the cost "essentially nil?" Are said private developers creating these fonts out of the goodness of their hearts? Sure, there would probably be a competition similar to defense product development (e.g., the Humvee replacement), but the winner(s) ultimately end up getting paid via a contract for production. Creating and properly testing a font doesn't come cheap.

Try reading and comprehending the entire post before responding. "The cost to the taxpayer is essentially nil." I wasn't talking about the development cost of the fonts.

Since you mentioned it, yes, people can and do develop stuff for free.

Well shit...I had never heard of open source software before. :rolleyes: [/sarcasm]

Sorry, but nowhere in your original post do you mention about not including the cost of developing the fonts. You even quote a post about funding the development of fonts, so one would assume you're including that in your topic as well. Try framing your argument a bit better.

Development costs aside, I still stand by my original query, since there still are other costs associated with switching fonts...acquiring licenses, creating/changing dies (for those states who still use demountable copy), to name a few. Usually whenever the feds are even the slightest bit involved, so is a ton of $$$$$$pending. As they say, "there is no such thing as a free lunch."
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

vtk

A point that I'm not sure was made clear earlier: adoption of a lot of OpenType features is much easier said than done. Just because OTF provides a way to specify fancy font features in a file, doesn't automatically make those features deployable.  Of course the sign design software has to support these advanced features.  This alone is a fair amount of work, engineering the software to correctly implement features in the OTF spec and integrate that with what it does with the text; since it has to do more than simply display the text on-screen, it can't delegate this complexity to the host OS.  And then how many OTF features have to be implemented, and to what degree?  OTF has a lot of neat tricks.  If you're just going to do the bare minimum of work to support the features used specifically by a highway sign font and the specific way those features are used by the font, you might as well forego the complexity of OpenType, make the font file itself as simple as possible, and implement any advanced features as program logic in the design software.

And this is the best-case scenario, which assumes the sign design software directly drives whatever equipment cuts out or prints the actual signage.  In many cases, the software only produces a plan sheet, which is read by a human who fabricates the sign with varying degrees of automation.  This human probably then has to know how to implement all of the fancy OpenType features you want the sign font to include: ligatures, kerning, using the correct size & weight of glyphs in special cases like fractions and large initial caps...  Your best hope is if the fabrication shop has a computer-driven process, and even then the operator must be able to correctly set up the sign according to the plan sheet, and that computer has to have the same version of the font and all necessary OTF support.

To summarize: re-read the first two sentences.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

Bobby5280

OpenType is not a new technology. It was first developed back in the mid 1990s. The technology has been widely available from the time Adobe released its first Creative Suite box set of software. OpenType is not going away. Most new commercial typefaces are now being released only in OpenType format. All this stuff should be enough of a clue for software developers, such as those behind apps like GuidSign, to update their applications.

Understanding just what to duplicate in a legend layout and then fabricate is just everday life in a sign shop. It demands attention to details and proper quality control. If someone is going to try to auto pilot his way through a sign design and fabrication project errors are going to happen. And that's 100% the sign guy's fault, not the fault of the font he was using.

Quote from: DaBigEDevelopment costs aside, I still stand by my original query, since there still are other costs associated with switching fonts...acquiring licenses, creating/changing dies (for those states who still use demountable copy), to name a few.

Modern signs don't need anything like stock letter dies, not unless you're doing something like making cast metal letters or injection molded letters (which no highway signs use). Sign designers create vector-based sign layouts. Those vector-based art files are then used to create flat letters on computer driven routing tables or vinyl cutters. I've seen a lot of big green signs where the legends have been made only of cut vinyl applied directly to the green sign panel with no separate metal pieces involved. The problem is some of these signs have the vinyl letters slapped onto the panel one letter at a time.

With all the talk of Clearview supposedly failing, I think what's really being exposed is many of the people involved in creating highway sign layouts and people tasked with fabricating the signs really kind of suck at what they're doing. The same people wouldn't cut it in a reputable commercial sign company.

Quote from: jakeFor some graphic designers, seeing their font across all road signs would be reward enough.

Not for the amount of work this kind of type family would require. The best type designers wouldn't be doing that kind of work for free at all in the first place. The honor of getting published only thrills amateurs. Professionals get paid. If such a type family would be expertly designed it would require an expert or experts to do it. If a type designer is making any fonts for free he's going to be doing so as a "loss leader" to get people to buy other fonts -for instance making a couple weights of a "super font" free to download but charging a handsome fee for all the other weights in the type family.

Field testing with life size sign panels can be expensive, especially if you're going to use the same materials required in real highway signs. Only a big company, like Google, could stomach eating the costs of developing fonts such as that to make open source or, in this case, submit to the FHWA for approval or rejection. And in Google's case, they would only develop something like a new highway sign type family if they could tie it into Google Earth & Google Maps. No individual type designer could go to those lengths essentially for free with zero guarantee for any payment on the back end. He would go broke.

jakeroot

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 19, 2014, 06:59:50 PM
Quote from: jakeFor some graphic designers, seeing their font across all road signs would be reward enough.

Not for the amount of work this kind of type family would require. The best type designers wouldn't be doing that kind of work for free at all in the first place. The honor of getting published only thrills amateurs. Professionals get paid. If such a type family would be expertly designed it would require an expert or experts to do it. If a type designer is making any fonts for free he's going to be doing so as a "loss leader" to get people to buy other fonts -for instance making a couple weights of a "super font" free to download but charging a handsome fee for all the other weights in the type family.

Field testing with life size sign panels can be expensive, especially if you're going to use the same materials required in real highway signs. Only a big company, like Google, could stomach eating the costs of developing fonts such as that to make open source or, in this case, submit to the FHWA for approval or rejection. And in Google's case, they would only develop something like a new highway sign type family if they could tie it into Google Earth & Google Maps. No individual type designer could go to those lengths essentially for free with zero guarantee for any payment on the back end. He would go broke.

It's only now that I'm realizing how long Clearview took to develop. If a typeface designer were to be working completely on their own, it would take them, maybe 5-10 years?

My thought with the whole "reward enough" scenario would be, in a case where Google decides to design the next highway font, they already have damn near 50,000 employees. They take a small group of employees that are experts in typeface design (such as those who designed Roboto) and simple re-assign them. They would still be getting paid, but by Google in the form of the annual salary they are already contractually assured. Of course, the issue is when Google get's compensated. Larry Page probably doesn't want Google taking a hit in the nuts just because the FHWA wants a *better* font.

DaBigE

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 19, 2014, 06:59:50 PM
Quote from: DaBigEDevelopment costs aside, I still stand by my original query, since there still are other costs associated with switching fonts...acquiring licenses, creating/changing dies (for those states who still use demountable copy), to name a few.

Modern signs don't need anything like stock letter dies, not unless you're doing something like making cast metal letters or injection molded letters (which no highway signs use). Sign designers create vector-based sign layouts. Those vector-based art files are then used to create flat letters on computer driven routing tables or vinyl cutters. I've seen a lot of big green signs where the legends have been made only of cut vinyl applied directly to the green sign panel with no separate metal pieces involved. The problem is some of these signs have the vinyl letters slapped onto the panel one letter at a time.

I'm referring to the BGSs that use letters that are riveted on (reflective sheeting applied to metal letter blanks). Many of those letter cutouts are still created with mechanical presses. Now if you have a laser or water-jet machine, all you have to do is change the source input file in the software.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

Bobby5280

Some big green signs are still made with separate routed aluminum letters covered with white reflective sheeting. Such letters are easy to create with a standard computer driven routing table using 1/4" or 1/8" bits since the letters are pretty big. Laser or water jet based tables are really only needed for individual letters or parts that are pretty small or projects where various sign parts need to fit together very precisely -such as a lighted monument sign with push-through, edge-lit acrylic letters. A standard routing table can't make the letter corners tight enough.

I would be surprised if any highway sign shop was using mechanical presses and dies to stamp out Clearview-based letters. Chances are those letters are coming off routing tables or merely rolling out of vinyl plotters.

Quote from: jakeMy thought with the whole "reward enough" scenario would be, in a case where Google decides to design the next highway font, they already have damn near 50,000 employees. They take a small group of employees that are experts in typeface design (such as those who designed Roboto) and simple re-assign them. They would still be getting paid, but by Google in the form of the annual salary they are already contractually assured. Of course, the issue is when Google get's compensated. Larry Page probably doesn't want Google taking a hit in the nuts just because the FHWA wants a *better* font.

In Google's case it could help them in terms of marketing. Their Earth & Maps apps are both heavily used in smart phones, tablets and personal computers. They could create a new type family with weights specifically engineered for traffic sign use and companion type families tailored to work in other environments, like smart phone displays, computer monitors, HDTV sets, the printed page, etc. That way a motorist would see the same type family on road signs and then also see it used in Google Earth & Maps or even other places like the Android UI, Google Play, etc. if they wanted to take things that far. They would have to develop one hell of a good type family to manage such a thing though.

Scott5114

If that's their incentive, they could easily just use ClearviewOne or Interstate as their corporate font of choice. Not that they have much interest in doing so–they seem pretty infatuated with Roboto (which I dislike enough to have switched my phone's system font to Samsung Sans).
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Bobby5280

#223
Google wouldn't gain anything by licensing any of the Clearview families from Terminal Design or licensing Interstate from Font Bureau. Google is interested in Roboto since they had the font family designed in-house at Google. They would essentially need to do the same in-house approach if they wanted to tackle this highway sign fonts issue.

Roboto certainly isn't the prettiest typeface available; there are plenty of other type families I like viewing more. Some criticize it as being a Helvetica rip-off, even though it has obvious style departures from Helvetica & Helvetica Neue. Other typefaces like Nimbus Sans, CG Triumvirate or Bitstream's Swiss 721 are indeed Helvetica rip-offs since they're literally cloning the glyphs.

One thing I can say in Roboto's defense: it covers the bases a hell of a lot better than many more popular typefaces. Roboto has a satisfactory number of weights from Thin to Black, Each weight has more than 1000 glyphs, covering extended Latin, Cyrillic & Greek ranges, diacriticals on capital letters and native small capital letters, fractions and a complete set of inferior & superior numerals. I don't get as many of those features out of Helvetica Neue or Gotham.

The latest version of Arial has a huge wealth of typographical features (it goes well past the features set in Roboto). Still, I consider Arial poison for the eyeballs. I refuse to design any signs using it unless it is strictly specified by the customer.

jakeroot

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 20, 2014, 05:39:04 PM
One thing I can say in Roboto's defense: it covers the bases a hell of a lot better than many more popular typefaces. Roboto has a satisfactory number of weights from Thin to Black, Each weight has more than 1000 glyphs, covering extended Latin, Cyrillic & Greek ranges, diacriticals on capital letters and native small capital letters, fractions and a complete set of inferior & superior numerals. I don't get as many of those features out of Helvetica Neue or Gotham.

I would consider that proof of Google's ability to design the font we are looking for. It would take years and years of work, of course, but they can do it.

Did you hear about Google's self driving car? It's been around for about five years now, but I think it's further proof that Google does dabble outside of the box sometimes.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 20, 2014, 05:39:04 PM
The latest version of Arial has a huge wealth of typographical features (it goes well past the features set in Roboto). Still, I consider Arial poison for the eyeballs. I refuse to design any signs using it unless it is strictly specified by the customer.

Arial...why does it exist?



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.