The Clearview thread

[kalvado]

The idea of a clearer font has merit, but Clearview isn't the silver bullet, at least in its current form.

I wonder, how much clearer a font can be. After all, those are just the same general shapes as Shakespeare used... 

[J N Winkler]

I wonder, how much clearer a font can be. After all, those are just the same general shapes as Shakespeare used...

Years ago I found a PhD dissertation online that attempted to correlate unit legibility of a typeface to certain intrinsic characteristics of the glyphs.  So, yes, there has been basic research oriented at finding the maximum possible unit legibility (given the visual acuity of a given population) and designing a typeface that approaches that maximum.

[kalvado]

I wonder, how much clearer a font can be. After all, those are just the same general shapes as Shakespeare used...

Years ago I found a PhD dissertation online that attempted to correlate unit legibility of a typeface to certain intrinsic characteristics of the glyphs.  So, yes, there has been basic research oriented at finding the maximum possible unit legibility (given the visual acuity of a given population) and designing a typeface that approaches that maximum.

There was some research means someone found money to fund that work.
I'm more questioning if readability can actually be significantly improved once fonts like Comic Sans or script fonts are out of the game. And once sans serif font is chosen over serif one, remaining differences are really not that great. 

[DaBigE]

I wonder, how much clearer a font can be. After all, those are just the same general shapes as Shakespeare used...

Years ago I found a PhD dissertation online that attempted to correlate unit legibility of a typeface to certain intrinsic characteristics of the glyphs.  So, yes, there has been basic research oriented at finding the maximum possible unit legibility (given the visual acuity of a given population) and designing a typeface that approaches that maximum.

There was some research means someone found money to fund that work.
I'm more questioning if readability can actually be significantly improved once fonts like Comic Sans or script fonts are out of the game. And once sans serif font is chosen over serif one, remaining differences are really not that great.

Which is why it would be far more time and cost-effective to fix the stroke width and counter space in the problematic letters a, e, and o, and add a "serif" to the capital letter I in the FHWA series.

[J N Winkler]

I'm more questioning if readability can actually be significantly improved once fonts like Comic Sans or script fonts are out of the game. And once sans serif font is chosen over serif one, remaining differences are really not that great.

That is the question I was trying to answer.  I believe it is generally accepted that there is a maximum unit legibility for a given combination of population visual acuity, layout (space padding affects readability), illumination ratios, etc.  I also strongly suspect that Series E Modified and Clearview 5-W are close to this maximum unit legibility for the combinations that are likely to be encountered in practice--at least close enough that it is justifiable to use the former instead of the latter despite slightly worse legibility performance if it will result in better outputs from the total system for designing, fabricating, erecting, and maintaining signs.

As I have said before in multiple forums, including at least once upthread, there is little to be gained from changing to a new typeface--whether it be Clearview or something else--outside of a systematic approach to legibility management that is currently absent.  For example, we no longer have a ban on using Series B for primary destination legend on freeway guide signs.  Most practitioners won't do it because they understand intuitively that Series B has far worse unit legibility than Series E Modified or even Series D, but even so the MUTCD technically allows Series B on freeway signs.  And while that is a pretty obvious no-no, there are other, more subtle choices designers have to make, such as which alphabet series to use in shields, for which there is no systematically disseminated human-factors guidance.  We do not even have nominal unit legibilities for the mixed-case FHWA series other than Series E Modified, for example.

[Scott5114]

For example, we no longer have a ban on using Series B for primary destination legend on freeway guide signs.  Most practitioners won't do it because they understand intuitively that Series B has far worse unit legibility than Series E Modified or even Series D, but even so the MUTCD technically allows Series B on freeway signs.  And while that is a pretty obvious no-no...

As you might have seen if you wander into the Signs With Design Errors thread, OkDOT appears to roll with more of a "hold my beer" approach to guide signing.

[Scott5114]

Nope, it's a legitimate Series B 6, but it's horizontally stretched to C width.

The X, on the other hand, is upside down.

[hbelkins]

Why is it posted as Exit 106 when mile marker 107 is located within the exit limits?

[vdeane]

Some states round all exit numbers down no matter how close to the next mile they are.  Given the location of the bridge, if this was taken south or westbound the interchange probably comes out to 106.9x.

[PHLBOS]

For example, we no longer have a ban on using Series B for primary destination legend on freeway guide signs.  Most practitioners won't do it because they understand intuitively that Series B has far worse unit legibility than Series E Modified or even Series D, but even so the MUTCD technically allows Series B on freeway signs.

When was there a ban on Series B?  There was a narrower Series A that has since been taken out of contention.

If there was a ban (re)imposed on Series B, many 3 and 4-digit route shields (regardless of route type) out there today would no longer be MUTCD-compliant.

[Brandon]

Some states round all exit numbers down no matter how close to the next mile they are.  Given the location of the bridge, if this was taken south or westbound the interchange probably comes out to 106.9x.

The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority does the same (with one exception).  If a crossing street with an exit is between, say, MM 21 and MM 22, it gets "Exit 21".

The Illinois Department of Transportation seems to round down from N.49 and up from N.50 to the nearest whole MM for the exit number.  hence, a crossing street with an exit below MM 21.49 will be "Exit 21", and above MM 21.50 will be "Exit 22".

[J N Winkler]

When was there a ban on Series B?  There was a narrower Series A that has since been taken out of contention.

There has never been a general ban on Series B.  However, back in the days when Series E Modified was the only mixed-case alphabet series, Series B could not be used for primary destination legend on freeway guide signs because that is required to be in mixed-case.  This also applied to Series C, D, E, and F since they likewise did not have lowercase letters, but I picked Series B as an example because it is the thinnest series in current use and thus the most clearly inappropriate for the freeway guide signing application.

If there was a ban (re)imposed on Series B, many 3 and 4-digit route shields (regardless of route type) out there today would no longer be MUTCD-compliant.

Digits in route shields are a separate issue.  I contend there should be a legibility floor, such that (e.g.) the digits in a four-digit guide-sign secondary state route shield in Virginia are no harder to read than the digits in a Texas guide-sign FM route marker with arbitrary digit count.  Of course this is not currently true, because Virginia uses a circle no matter what (forcing Series B), while TxDOT allows the width of the shield to expand so that Series D digits at the appropriate height will fit.

I think states should be forced to redesign their markers as needed to ensure this legibility floor is met.

[PHLBOS]

I think states should be forced to redesign their markers as needed to ensure this legibility floor is met.

I wasn't just referring to state and county route shields in my previous comment.  Series B numerals on 3-digit Interstate shields have been spreading like wildfire in many areas for some time.  Some agencies (I'm looking at you DRPA) have also used Series B numerals for 3-digit US shields as well.

[Eth]

Some agencies (I'm looking at you DRPA) have also used Series B numerals for 3-digit US shields as well.

Ah, but are they using Series B and then additionally compressing it to 80% width?

[Brian556]

This came across my news feed today saying approval for Clearview has been reinstated:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5/ia5_reinstatement.pdf

[DaBigE]

Interesting:

How long will the Interim Approval be valid?
Answer:
FHWA has no plans at this time to terminate the use of Clearview as allowed in IA-5 after September 30, 2018 when the appropriations language expires.

source

[Pink Jazz]

I wonder which agencies will reinstate it.  I can potentially see VDOT reinstating it, following the strict guidelines that they adopted in 2014.

[jakeroot]

Interesting:

How long will the Interim Approval be valid?
Answer:
FHWA has no plans at this time to terminate the use of Clearview as allowed in IA-5 after September 30, 2018 when the appropriations language expires.

source

Very interesting. The IA approval ending so soon after reinstatement would have been a major blow to Clearview advocates. But with the FHWA not having any plans to rescind the IA, even after September, agencies might be more likely to reconsider the typeface, as the risk is much lower. There are many states, I'm sure, that would only use Clearview if it were added to the MUTCD (WA for example, who confirmed as much to me in an email). But agencies that previously used it could very easily start reusing it again.

In states that choose to readopt the typeface, I would expect for there to be a period of FHWA signs popping up again, due to the design of the signs having taken place after the initial rescinding. But, after that, Clearview popping up again.

[Scott5114]

I would imagine there are some agencies reluctant to get on the Clearview train because they just swapped everything over to FHWA Series, and now they have to swap again, and what happens if the IA gets canned again? Worst case scenario, it could morph into a less controversial version of Mexico City Policy, where each incoming administration changes the policy back to the way it was the last time a member of their party was in the Oval Office.

That, and the fact that some states were abandoning Clearview even before the IA was rescinded, makes me think that there are only a select few states (chiefly Texas) that are actually interested in pursuing this.

[Brandon]

Upon seeing some of the newer FHWA signs and the Clearview signs side-by-side here in Illinois, it strikes me that Clearview appears very dated and old-looking.  The FHWA appears timeless and fresh by comparison, especially on new signage.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

Yes. My position on this is well-known. This should be something the individual states decide. If West Virginia uses the FHWA font on its signs, but Kentucky wants to use Helvetica or Franklin Gothic, my position is that Kentucky should be able to.

And then we would get Comic Sans for sign fonts!

[J N Winkler]

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"--although I have been told that VDOT will likely pursue a return to Clearview, TxDOT is the prime mover behind this initiative and may very well remain the only agency using it on a large scale.  It is distantly possible that Michigan DOT could return to using Clearview, but I just downloaded a major I-696 contract and it shows Series E Modified for new installs.  I cannot think of any US state other than Texas for which I have access to pattern-accurate signing construction plans where the typefaces specified are not the FHWA series.

In the statement "FHWA has no plans at this time to terminate the use of Clearview . . . after the appropriations language expires," I believe the key phrase is at this time, and that the likeliest outcome of this current phase of the Clearview fight is a "Texas exception" rather than Mexico City Policy cycling.

Internationally, the recent experience with new typefaces has been mixed.  Here's the scorecard, to the best of my current knowledge:

*  US, Canada--FHWA series to Clearview (adopted in US on optional basis, rejected, adopted again)

*  Austria--Traffic Austria typeface to Typeface TERN (no option to continue using old typeface)

*  Switzerland--VSS typefaces to ASTRA-Frutiger (no option to continue using old typeface)

*  Netherlands--FHWA series to ANWB typefaces and back to FHWA series

*  Spain--Series E Modified/old L series to Autopista (very similar to Series E Modified)/Carretera Convencional to Carretera Convencional only (old typeface used/current typefaces used in accord with old policy even in recent proyectos de construcción even when such usage does not conform with current policy--probably an artifact of proyectos sitting on the shelves for years without updating)

*  Chile--FHWA series to RutaCL series (but typeface option policy allows use of both)

RutaCL has not been discussed on this forum before.  CONASET (a Chilean government agency responsible for maintaining the Chilean MUTCD equivalent) makes both TrueType versions of the fonts themselves and an AutoCAD bolt-on for sign design available free of charge.

CONASET download page

In appearance it is highly reminiscent of "typewriter Gothic" with a mullet on lowercase i and, like Clearview and the Transport typefaces, a curved tail on lowercase l.  I am betting that opinions on it on this forum will be just as divided as they are for Clearview.  I personally like it less than Clearview, but its digits are clearly superior to Clearview's in terms of legibility.  A casual Google search turns up a research literature mostly in Spanish claiming improvements over the FHWA series (a reduced subset of which is used in Chile--I think just Series D, Series E Modified, and maybe Series E), though I am going just by Google search snippets and have not yet attempted article downloads.  In principle the FHWA series continue to be an option for signs in Chile, but in the construction drawings I have so far downloaded from the Chilean government's public tender portal, I see the two RutaCL typefaces used exclusively for designable guide signs, with FHWA hanging on for standard signs (mainly warning and regulatory signs) and kilometerposts.

[Takumi]

VDOT will likely pursue a return to Clearview

https://youtu.be/RA06Z5e1ZFc

[PHLBOS]

It is distantly possible that Michigan DOT could return to using Clearview, but I just downloaded a major I-696 contract and it shows Series E Modified for new installs.

Chances are those contract drawings were made prior to IA being reinstated. 

When IA was initially revoked; contract drawings already showing Clearview were mostly grandfathered in (still approved).  I would assume that a similar but opposite approach would happen should a state DOT reintroduce usage of the Clearview font.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

Leave it up to the Feds to cause drama over a typeface! As a passenger, the tails of certain lowercase characters (a), and spacing in Clearview (to me) doesn't make a difference. It has already been stated that Clearview was skewed in it's test results (or inconclusive).