The Clearview thread

[ran4sh]

I think pretty much every jurisdiction adheres to the rule that when an exit label spans two lines on an interchange sequence sign, the distance to that exit is centered vertically on those two lines.  However, some agencies (like TxDOT) use part- or full-width ruled lines to separate multiline labels and thus further reduce ambiguity.

As Kphoger and others have noted, this FLW Blvd./Bell Rd./Princess Rd./Pima Dr. interchange sequence sign is a design fail.

The fraction doesn't look right to my eye either.  I suspect overlarge numerals.

In Georgia and North Carolina, what I have seen is that those states will make the sign wide enough to fit the exit information on one line, such that there are no Interchange Sequence signs with more than 3 lines of exits.

Friendly reminder for everyone to post their thoughts on Clearview in a comment to FHWA on the new proposed MUTCD before 11:59 PM EST tomorrow! (Especially those of you that voted for the first option in the thread's poll  )

Link: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FHWA-2020-0001-0001

As a reminder, the proposed MUTCD limits Clearview usage to solely the destination text on Freeway and Expressway Guide Signs (aka BGSs).

Would commenting to the FHWA actually do anything? Because it's Congress that mandated FHWA to reinstate Clearview in the first place. So FHWA would just say their hands are tied.

The Vox video on the two highway typefaces was interesting.

I like it that they interviewed Tobias Frere-Jones for the docu-short. He is a bona fide expert on typography and one of the more talented type designers working today. IMHO, Gotham was the first highly successful typeface of the 21st century.

But there were other things they left out of the article. Frere-Jones pointed out a lot of the blunt quirks of "Highway Gothic" (aka Series Gothic). They didn't really get into how Frere-Jones cleaned up many of the letter forms in the Interstate type family he first designed thru Font Bureau. Just recently Font Bureau ended their short relationship with the Adobe Fonts service for Creative Cloud, pulling popular type families such as Interstate. But then Frere-Jones put Interstate back into the Adobe Fonts service via his own independent type foundry. A few other type designers have done the same thing.

Here is a bigger issue: the Highway Gothic vs Clearview Battle is 17 years old -and that's just going from when Clearview Highway earned interim approval. The typeface had been in development for years prior to that.

A lot has happened with type technology in the past 17 years. The OpenType format was a brand new thing when Clearview (which used older TrueType) was released. The OpenType format allows for much larger character sets. More recently the OpenType Variable standard debuted and now Variable Fonts are growing in popularity. Many of the best selling commercial fonts on the market offer variable versions in addition to standard "single instance" font files. OpenType SVG is an even newer standard.

Meanwhile the two existing highway sign typefaces are badly outdated, technologically speaking. The character sets of the various versions of Highway Gothic are minimal at best. Most industry-specific sign making applications are badly outdated with their type handling capabilities as well. That software isn't fundamentally any better in terms of type handling than a 30 year old copy of CorelDRAW. I work in the sign industry, but I do most of my vector-based design work within Adobe Illustrator CC and CorelDRAW 2021. Using "CAS" apps like Flexi is like stepping in a time machine back to the mid 1990's. I won't use a design application that isn't fully OpenType-aware.

These days when graphics people buy commercial type it is expected the typefaces offer a number of modern OTF-oriented features in greatly expanded character sets. One type family I bought recently, Coco Sharp by Zetafonts, has over 2000 glyphs per font file. Variable fonts is another item that raises the standards bar even higher. The last few type families I have purchased for work have all included variable fonts in the package. OTF Var fonts that include variable weight and width axes are more desirable. Coco Sharp is fairly unique; it's the first variable font I've seen to include a variable x-height axis (along with a weight axis).

That sort of gets back to the Clearview thing and why the legibility study was arguably flawed. Clearview obviously has a larger x-height than Series Gothic. If you set the same line of lettering in Clearview and Series Gothic, both with the same cap letter height, the line set in Clearview will take up more length on a sign panel. That doesn't let Series Gothic off the hook however; it still has lots of tight counters and tight bends that do harm legibility.

I think if the folks behind Clearview want the typeface to get full approval they need to go back to work on the designs and improve it further. That also means properly expanding the character set to include things like native small capitals, or fixing the fraction sets so they match cap letter heights. I don't know if they need to go as far as making a variable version of Clearview Highway. On the other hand, I can't see anyone going out of their way to buy Clearview Highway's "commercial" sister, Clearview One. Not with what else is in the commercial fonts marketplace. If they want commercial sales and popularity of Clearview One to improve they need to update it accordingly.

Why would native small caps be necessary? never mind the rest of those features that don't get used on road signs.

Larger initial letter for directions is not "small caps", it's standard size caps with a large initial letter.

[Scott5114]

Would commenting to the FHWA actually do anything? Because it's Congress that mandated FHWA to reinstate Clearview in the first place. So FHWA would just say their hands are tied.

That Congressional mandate expired–it was only in place for one fiscal year, if I remember correctly–and has not been renewed. Removing Clearview from the proposed MUTCD would be status quo. The proposed MUTCD change basically makes Clearview book-legal without an IA, but also restricts its usage far more than the Clearview circular ever has (which I think is a little odd, even as an Series EEM partisan; I don't see anything inherently wrong with Texas's use of it on conventional-road guide signage, which would be banned by the proposed Clearview rules).

[kphoger]

However, some agencies (like TxDOT) use part- or full-width ruled lines to separate multiline labels and thus further reduce ambiguity.

Yes, for an example of a comparable but vastly superior sign in Texas, see here.

[stevashe]

Would commenting to the FHWA actually do anything? Because it's Congress that mandated FHWA to reinstate Clearview in the first place. So FHWA would just say their hands are tied.

That Congressional mandate expired–it was only in place for one fiscal year, if I remember correctly–and has not been renewed. Removing Clearview from the proposed MUTCD would be status quo. The proposed MUTCD change basically makes Clearview book-legal without an IA, but also restricts its usage far more than the Clearview circular ever has (which I think is a little odd, even as an Series EEM partisan; I don't see anything inherently wrong with Texas's use of it on conventional-road guide signage, which would be banned by the proposed Clearview rules).

Exactly, the law was only in place for the 2018 fiscal year. The FHWA actually specifically requested comment on the Clearview rules in the NPA, so I'd suggest anyone who has an opinion should go ahead and comment.

As for the proposed rules, some states have used signs with very limited Clearview, an example of a sign that would conform to them from Kentucky is seen in this streetview link: https://goo.gl/maps/wRCd7Q6nsaFJ8MBq7

[JoePCool14]

However, some agencies (like TxDOT) use part- or full-width ruled lines to separate multiline labels and thus further reduce ambiguity.

Yes, for an example of a comparable but vastly superior sign in Texas, see here.

Coincidentally, the sign you linked is next to this monstrosity though. Four street names... gross!
https://goo.gl/maps/m81eqC9cu33xLz6L9

Edit: Also, speaking of fonts, is this freaking Segoe UI on these right here, also nearby?!
https://goo.gl/maps/Yv23RJd1DcanDqRc6

[Scott5114]

Edit: Also, speaking of fonts, is this freaking Segoe UI on these right here, also nearby?!
https://goo.gl/maps/Yv23RJd1DcanDqRc6

No, that's Frutiger Bold.

[kphoger]

Coincidentally, the sign you linked is next to this monstrosity though. Four street names... gross!
https://goo.gl/maps/m81eqC9cu33xLz6L9

Yeah, well I blame Buc-ee's for that one.

[mass_citizen]

Would commenting to the FHWA actually do anything? Because it's Congress that mandated FHWA to reinstate Clearview in the first place. So FHWA would just say their hands are tied.

That Congressional mandate expired–it was only in place for one fiscal year, if I remember correctly–and has not been renewed. Removing Clearview from the proposed MUTCD would be status quo. The proposed MUTCD change basically makes Clearview book-legal without an IA, but also restricts its usage far more than the Clearview circular ever has (which I think is a little odd, even as an Series EEM partisan; I don't see anything inherently wrong with Texas's use of it on conventional-road guide signage, which would be banned by the proposed Clearview rules).

I commented to that effect. The mandate was for one year. The report to congress was submitted. Time to follow the science and move on from this font.

[tolbs17]

https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/

North Carolina DOES NOT use Clearview.

[JoePCool14]

https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/

North Carolina DOES NOT use Clearview.

That whole page probably needs to be updated. I don't remember NCDOT ever using Clearview.

A few things I also noticed could be changed:

• Arizona stopped using Clearview.
• To say that Wisconsin uses Clearview is inaccurate. There are a few signs around Madison, but that's basically it for the entire state.
• ISTHA definitely has dropped Clearview, and IDOT likely has dropped Clearview.
• Oklahoma may have stopped using Clearview if the latest signs on I-44 are any indication.
• Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.

[SkyPesos]

• Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.

2017 I think, give or take a year. Definitely not earlier than that, as I remember a sign replacement spree on OH 126 with new Clearview ones (along with adding exit numbers) in 2015.

[I-35]

https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/

North Carolina DOES NOT use Clearview.

That whole page probably needs to be updated. I don't remember NCDOT ever using Clearview.

A few things I also noticed could be changed:

• Arizona stopped using Clearview.
• To say that Wisconsin uses Clearview is inaccurate. There are a few signs around Madison, but that's basically it for the entire state.
• ISTHA definitely has dropped Clearview, and IDOT likely has dropped Clearview.
• Oklahoma may have stopped using Clearview if the latest signs on I-44 are any indication.
• Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.

Oklahoma has stopped using it.  A recent-ish (2019) signage project on US 69 from TX to McAlester and ongoing project on resigning I-35 from TX to Murray County is proving this out.  They look to both be using Series E(M).  (I think)

[tolbs17]

I think Delaware stopped too...at least I can see the new ones in Highway Gothic when I-295 was rebuilt.

[PurdueBill]

• Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.

2017 I think, give or take a year. Definitely not earlier than that, as I remember a sign replacement spree on OH 126 with new Clearview ones (along with adding exit numbers) in 2015.

Ohio signs designed (and possibly fabricated) but not yet installed before Clearview was turned off were still made and installed into 2019 (e.g., I-76 Akron Main St. interchange project).  Other replacement projects (e.g., US 30 from Indiana line to east of US 30) have used FHWA as design was just in time after (or changed with the signs not yet fabricated).  ODOT seems reliably FHWA lettering now.

[Scott5114]

https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/

North Carolina DOES NOT use Clearview.

That whole page probably needs to be updated. I don't remember NCDOT ever using Clearview.

A few things I also noticed could be changed:

• Arizona stopped using Clearview.
• To say that Wisconsin uses Clearview is inaccurate. There are a few signs around Madison, but that's basically it for the entire state.
• ISTHA definitely has dropped Clearview, and IDOT likely has dropped Clearview.
• Oklahoma may have stopped using Clearview if the latest signs on I-44 are any indication.
• Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.

Oklahoma has stopped using it.  A recent-ish (2019) signage project on US 69 from TX to McAlester and ongoing project on resigning I-35 from TX to Murray County is proving this out.  They look to both be using Series E(M).  (I think)

I can actually narrow the changeover down to the exact project–the I-35/SH-9E project in Norman (project no. NHPPIY-0035-2(176)). Was let on 2014-11-20 with all Clearview signage, which is what was installed, except that a couple of sign gantries got a change order after the project was awarded...and those gantries are in Series E(M). So if you wanted to dig up the date on that change order, you could probably find a pretty narrow timeframe for the changeover.

[Alex]

I had not updated that page in several years. Did not even realize that the maps Signgeek made no longer displayed...
So fixed those and updated the list after reviewing the recent posts in this thread.

https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/

https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/

North Carolina DOES NOT use Clearview.

That whole page probably needs to be updated. I don't remember NCDOT ever using Clearview.

A few things I also noticed could be changed:

• Arizona stopped using Clearview.
• To say that Wisconsin uses Clearview is inaccurate. There are a few signs around Madison, but that's basically it for the entire state.
• ISTHA definitely has dropped Clearview, and IDOT likely has dropped Clearview.
• Oklahoma may have stopped using Clearview if the latest signs on I-44 are any indication.
• Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.

[machias]

I had not updated that page in several years. Did not even realize that the maps Signgeek made no longer displayed...
So fixed those and updated the list after reviewing the recent posts in this thread.

https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/

https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/

North Carolina DOES NOT use Clearview.

That whole page probably needs to be updated. I don't remember NCDOT ever using Clearview.

A few things I also noticed could be changed:

• Arizona stopped using Clearview.
• To say that Wisconsin uses Clearview is inaccurate. There are a few signs around Madison, but that's basically it for the entire state.
• ISTHA definitely has dropped Clearview, and IDOT likely has dropped Clearview.
• Oklahoma may have stopped using Clearview if the latest signs on I-44 are any indication.
• Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.

NYS Thruway no longer uses Clearview, they stopped using it right around when the interim approval was first rescinded.

[tolbs17]

More evidence here.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5rptcongress/ch2.htm

[tolbs17]

• Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.

2017 I think, give or take a year. Definitely not earlier than that, as I remember a sign replacement spree on OH 126 with new Clearview ones (along with adding exit numbers) in 2015.

But, these are in clearview.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9765366,-83.1294352,3a,49.1y,96.42h,96.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2No6zw1ftK-8erutedW-1g!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656

[SkyPesos]

• Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.

2017 I think, give or take a year. Definitely not earlier than that, as I remember a sign replacement spree on OH 126 with new Clearview ones (along with adding exit numbers) in 2015.

But, these are in clearview.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9765366,-83.1294352,3a,49.1y,96.42h,96.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2No6zw1ftK-8erutedW-1g!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Yea, and it was installed sometime in late 2016 or early 2017, which matches the year range I've given. Not sure what you're trying to say there.

[snowc]

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7722431,-73.8728842,3a,75y,110.44h,98.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa_A_49g40kQuk21BhdC14w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Clearview, in LGA NY? 

[Dirt Roads]

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7722431,-73.8728842,3a,75y,110.44h,98.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa_A_49g40kQuk21BhdC14w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Clearview, in LGA NY? 

I may not be so good at identifying Clearview, but I know that Frutiger was used by the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey (PANYNJ) until recently.  This is very common in airports in Europe, so it was strange that it was also used on the PATH subways in certain locations.  More recently, the Port Authority uses Helvetica Now.  By the way, the Port Authority calls it typography and not a font.

Speaking of the Port Authority, they went through a huge battle over how to handle the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements with respect to digital signage.  For those who aren't aware, the original ADA required light characters on dark backgrounds.  The original LCD digital signs had black LCD character panels over a yellow backlit panel.  After a number of years of wrangling, the Port Authority paid for the development of full-panel LCD signs that blanked out everything except the characters, which were shown in (of course) yellow backlighting.  These looked weird at first, but eventually we got used to them.  It looks like the Port Authority has gone back to dot-matrix digital signs with yellow characters.  None of which is in Frutiger.

[Scott5114]

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7722431,-73.8728842,3a,75y,110.44h,98.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa_A_49g40kQuk21BhdC14w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Clearview, in LGA NY? 

That's Frutiger. Not every font on a sign that isn't FHWA Series is Clearview.

[Dirt Roads]

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7722431,-73.8728842,3a,75y,110.44h,98.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa_A_49g40kQuk21BhdC14w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Clearview, in LGA NY? 

That's Frutiger. Not every font on a sign that isn't FHWA Series is Clearview.

I wasn't quite sure.  It's not the clean-and-crisp Frutiger that is used all over the place by the Port Authority.  We even had to use a special version of Frutiger at the airport in Amsterdam, appropriately named Schiphol Frutiger (after three attempts, that project never got built).

[Scott5114]

It looks like they've tinkered with the kerning to get something closer to FHWA Series metrics (although it wasn't done particularly artfully; notice the spacing on "Terminals").