The Clearview Subject

[sammi]

Nipping this in the bud: one in fact can copy the glyph outlines without rasterizing and retracing them, but this may violate the original font foundry's copyright, so if they have good lawyers, then no you "can't"  do that.

Well. You can, but you may not.

(What have you done to me, English teachers? )

[Bobby5280]

One can't copyright the shape of a letter. But the unique way a typeface glyph is digitized is recognizable. A type foundry could examine how the glyphs are digitized. If the placement of anchor points, direction handles, etc. are identical with their letters they can prove it has been illegally copied. However, it doesn't take much effort to cheat that in applications like FontLab Studio. Rasterizing the glyphs and re-tracing them is an arguably crude work-around.

Reminds me of my years prior to high school where I first took a vector graphics class. My old process was opening up Photoshop and making a 6000x6000 image just in case I had to blow it up big-time. Of course, that whole concept is fatally flawed, so I'm glad that I now know better.

Even a 6000px X 6000px image is a hell of a lot better than the garbage I see all the time (although the file sizes can get pretty big). Too many people out there design a logo to look on a computer screen, complete with all the cheesy Photoshop bevels, drop shadows, OSX inspired glass effects and maybe even a lens flare thrown in for good measure. The image might seem pretty, but a 600px wide Photoshopped "logo" won't work well on very many things outside a web page layout.

Some people are complaining about the move to so-called "flat" design, a rejection of the skeuomorphism made popular by things like the interface elements in previous versions of Mac OSX. Honestly, most of the award winning graphic design I've seen for decades avoided as many cheesy, pretentious embellishments as possible, going for as much of a flat look as possible. One should add embellishments to a graphics item only when it is necessary. Embellishments and increased complication get in the way of legibility. It limits viewing distance or how small the element can be reduced. Nike's "swoosh" logo may seem very plain or minimal, but it can be reduced to a microscopic size on a page and still be recognizable. McDonald's "golden arches" can be noticed from a mile or more. Vector-based art fits in with that kind of scalability a lot better than pixel-based stuff.

[Zeffy]

So would you say, Microsoft's current and old logos are GOOD examples of logo designing? The old Microsoft logo used Helvetica Black I believe, and had no fancy effects to it. In fact, it probably was made in a vector application, though I'm not sure what was available back then...


versus:

[vdeane]

I much prefer the Win 7 Microsoft logo to the squares that dominate now.

[briantroutman]

So would you say, Microsoft's current and old logos are GOOD examples of logo designing?

I would say Microsoft's 1987 and current logos represent good logo design in the same way that a Toyota Camry is a good car. No glaring faults, but neither beautiful nor timeless. The old logo was "generic late '80s corporation"  (hence the need for a replacement), and the new one is "generic 2010 tech company" . It will likewise look out-of-date in 2025.

[JoePCool14]

The oldest logos look IMO messed up.

[vtk]

When I hear "the old Microsoft logo" I think of the Blibbet, even though that was before my time.  The one with the butchered "o" is still "the Microsoft logo" to me.

[Bobby5280]

So would you say, Microsoft's current and old logos are GOOD examples of logo designing? The old Microsoft logo used Helvetica Black I believe, and had no fancy effects to it. In fact, it probably was made in a vector application, though I'm not sure what was available back then...

Microsoft's new logo, as "plain" as it seems, it actually a very well thought out brand mark. At least when it is displayed correctly. I don't know what happened to that re-arranged lock-up of the new Microsoft logo, but the four window panes icon is not supposed to be stacked on top of the letters like that.

Microsoft's new logo is very clean. The somewhat Humanist type and its coloring seems friendly. The new logo is very legible. It's a very good tech company logo.

Microsoft's previous logo, dating back to 1987 was decent. It fit in with 1980's style, but perhaps with 1970's era "make the letters kiss" kerning. It might have been created in a vector drawing application. Postscript and the earliest vector-based applications were arriving on the scene at that time. The old logo seemed more threatening with its heavy, black, Helvetica-inspired type, complete with a Pac-Man mouth on the "O" looking to eat its competition.

Some design experts have gone as far as saying Microsoft's new logo and UI design in Windows 8, Windows Phone, etc. one-upped Apple in terms of applying a more up to date look to its products. And that's kind of amazing considering how many design people are ardent Mac fans. Microsoft didn't invent "flat design" (even Google was doing some of this stuff before Microsoft picked up on it). But Microsoft pursued this look before it arguably became a fad. Apple had to be dragged away from its 1999 era skeuomorphism look in OSX and iOS kicking and screaming.

[jbnv]

Some design experts have gone as far as saying Microsoft's new logo and UI design in Windows 8, Windows Phone, etc. one-upped Apple in terms of applying a more up to date look to its products. And that's kind of amazing considering how many design people are ardent Mac fans. Microsoft didn't invent "flat design" (even Google was doing some of this stuff before Microsoft picked up on it). But Microsoft pursued this look before it arguably became a fad. Apple had to be dragged away from its 1999 era skeuomorphism look in OSX and iOS kicking and screaming.

How is the flat look more up-to-date? Skeuomorphism really goes back at least to the Mac OSes of the 1980s; originally UI elements were ugly black-and-white, but as the hardware advanced, the skeuomorphs improved. I understand that there is a sense of "we don't need 3D UI elements to show that we are high tech" now that the technology is mature. This person's honest opinion is that Windows 8 is ugly, iOS7 is ugly, and many applications of the flat look aren't that pretty.

[vtk]

Holy crap, why do Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons pretend these older two logos never existed?

[briantroutman]

Holy crap, why do Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons pretend these older two logos never existed?

And don't forget the Microsoft Metallica logo from about 1980...

How is the flat look more up-to-date?

It's a matter of differing philosophies. Think of it as if we had electric cars that played "vroom vroom"  sounds as we pulled away from a traffic light. At first, it's just a little crutch to make a generation of petrol-heads feel a little more comfortable with the new technology, but eventually, you realize that it's a silly and needless practice. We're driving a plastic pod with an electric motor–not a Plymouth Road Runner with a V8.

Another way to look at it is that you use a smartphone, tablet, or whatever to create, edit, or view content, and over designing the interface distracts from that primary purpose.

[jakeroot]

Some design experts have gone as far as saying Microsoft's new logo and UI design in Windows 8, Windows Phone, etc. one-upped Apple in terms of applying a more up to date look to its products. And that's kind of amazing considering how many design people are ardent Mac fans. Microsoft didn't invent "flat design" (even Google was doing some of this stuff before Microsoft picked up on it). But Microsoft pursued this look before it arguably became a fad. Apple had to be dragged away from its 1999 era skeuomorphism look in OSX and iOS kicking and screaming.

How is the flat look more up-to-date? Skeuomorphism really goes back at least to the Mac OSes of the 1980s; originally UI elements were ugly black-and-white, but as the hardware advanced, the skeuomorphs improved. I understand that there is a sense of "we don't need 3D UI elements to show that we are high tech" now that the technology is mature. This person's honest opinion is that Windows 8 is ugly, iOS7 is ugly, and many applications of the flat look aren't that pretty.

Dieter Rams is a German designer known for his "10 Principles of Good Design". Of his 10 principles that could be applied to logo design...

- Good design is unobtrusive
- Good design is long lasting
- Good design is as little design as possible

You can take these particular principles however you like, however, what I personally pull from these is that a logo has to be some shape at its most basic nature, and then can be dressed up accordingly at a later date. The Apple logo is a brilliant example of this philosophy...it's not obtrusive, it appears to be long lasting, and it's a decently simple as a design can get.

[roadman]

My experience has been that companies engage in the practice of logo and/or packaging 'updating' for one of the following three reasons:

Because they already have enough of the market share that they feel they can force this change on the public (i.e. Microsoft);

Because they don't currently have enough of the market share and decide this change is the best way to increase it (i.e. Wendy's);

Because they want to disguise the fact they are now selling you a lower quantity of a product at a higher price (i.e. any national food brand).

[Bobby5280]

Companies change their logos to keep their corporate & advertising image from looking dated. It's either that or they're trying to fix something that doesn't work in their old logos.

Very few corporate logos stay relevant looking over two or more decades. Of ones that have been around for a long time, such as Coca-Cola, if the brand itself isn't tweaked just a little bit the product packaging definitely will be revamped. The stripe or stripes cutting through the Coca-Cola logo have gone through a number of different versions in the last 20 years.

Microsoft's 1987 logo was looking dated. So they changed it and did a good job with it. They didn't "force" the change on anyone. It's their logo. They own it. They can do whatever they want with it. Any company understands that a really bad change, like what The Gap tried a couple years ago, may be met with outright hostiilty from the public. So they understand they have some responsibility. Generally, large companies understand the importance of branding very well. Generally, small business does not. I see the worst looking signs and "logos" coming from a lot of small businesses.

In the case of Wendy's, their old logo with its wood type lettering was outdated. Its design made me think of little mom and pop restaurants that specialized in catfish and chicken fried steaks. Does one need to prefer country music in order to eat at Wendy's. Their old logo was speaking to a more limited demographic. Their new logo is definitely a big improvement.

One of my close friends is a restaurant manager. He has told me plenty about the food business. If a company wants to start selling USDA Grade D beef in their tacos, put "pink slime" in their burger patties or change the packaging size/shape/amount of chips in the bag they don't have to change the logo in order to do so. They just make the cost cutting change anyway.

How is the flat look more up-to-date? Skeuomorphism really goes back at least to the Mac OSes of the 1980s; originally UI elements were ugly black-and-white, but as the hardware advanced, the skeuomorphs improved. I understand that there is a sense of "we don't need 3D UI elements to show that we are high tech" now that the technology is mature. This person's honest opinion is that Windows 8 is ugly, iOS7 is ugly, and many applications of the flat look aren't that pretty.

Flat design is at least more legible. That counts for a great deal if the brand is meant to be put in print at tiny sizes or meant to be read at a significant distance on an outdoor sign. Bevels, drop-shadows, imitations of real world textures, etc. get in the way of legibility.

Designs that are more simple tend to stand up to time better. Apple's logo used to have that rainbow color thing in it. Now it's just a solid color; far more simple looking. The old rainbow version of the Apple logo looks very dated now.

Another serious problem with skeuomorphism is the illustrative symbols and textures it uses may be irrelevant with many viewers. For instance it might make sense to put an image of a Rolodex into a contacts list within an e-mail application, but there's lots of people who have never had to use one of those analog devices. Film strip symbols are used all over the place in photography and video applications. Again, there is a huge number of photographers and videographers that have never used film. Apple used a wood book shelf in its e-books app. Meanwhile millions of Americans are getting rid of space hogging physical books and book shelves.

[jbnv]

Bringing this back to Clearview, I would argue (again, from my honest opinion) that Clearview looks modern and Highway Gothic looks dated. Now, I'm not going to claim that Clearview is a substantial *improvement* over Highway Gothic, as I would raise lots of ire by doing so here. I'd rather see the font choice opened up and fixes made to improve legibility than to wholesale discontinue its use.

As for the points raised in response to mine earlier, I do understand these points. I still think Windows 8 and iOS7 are ugly.

[jakeroot]

Another serious problem with skeuomorphism is the illustrative symbols and textures it uses may be irrelevant with many viewers. For instance it might make sense to put an image of a Rolodex into a contacts list within an e-mail application, but there's lots of people who have never had to use one of those analog devices. Film strip symbols are used all over the place in photography and video applications. Again, there is a huge number of photographers and videographers that have never used film. Apple used a wood book shelf in its e-books app. Meanwhile millions of Americans are getting rid of space hogging physical books and book shelves.

Not to mention that sometimes, these virtual counterparts are functionally identical to their real-life counterparts, and thus are subject to the same criticism that the real-life object is. Given that, if presented with a clean slate, the design should start from the ground-up.

I'd rather see the font choice opened up and fixes made to improve legibility than to wholesale discontinue its use.

Yes yes yes yes.

[Bobby5280]

Yeah, I think it would be ridiculous for the FHWA to simply ban the use of Clearview, particularly in states or cities where it is already in heavy use. Clearview complies with the rules from the latest MUTCD, such as having lowercase characters at least tall as 75% of capital letter height. Series Gothic barely complies with that (some characters actually fall short of the 75% standard).

If we're talking about highway sign designers getting confused by having access to two type families instead of only one then those sign designers who are getting confused really ought to be doing something else other than designing signs. Those guys would be absolutely lost in my job. I have lots of volume level clients with many different typographical standards and I have no problem maintaining design consistency -even if it's something I didn't even originally design. One project I've been working on lately has a mix of ITC Bookman and Bookman Old Style mixed in together in different places. If these guys can't keep Series Gothic and Clearview organized they would be lost trying to tell differences between those variants of Bookman, or things like the differences between Helvetica & Helvetica Neue or just plain Helvetica versus Arial.


If the FHWA wants to roll back standards to Series Gothic only they need to at least push for some improvements already. The FHWA and vendors of highway sign making software need to step into the 21st century when it comes to type handling. Clearview and FHWA Series Gothic are both deficient for all the typographical features they lack compared to contemporary OpenType fonts. Highway sign making software needs to fully support the features of OpenType.

In my commercial sign design work I sometimes need foreign language support in a given typeface, like Greek or Cyrillic character sets -or at least a complete set of accented characters. There's a much greater need of complete fraction sets or a superiors/inferiors numeral set for synthesizing any fraction. Small capitals character sets are very handy. I really like OpenType fonts that have lots of alternate characters and ligatures. They can solve spacing issues or simply make the layout look a lot better. That's especially true for script typefaces. A script typeface with lots of alternates will end up looking more like real hand lettering rather than a mere computer-based font.

[Scott5114]

Why would you need a complete set of accents for FHWA Series fonts when the MUTCD disallows the use of diacritics on road signs? (Hell, you're not even allowed to put the apostrophe in "Tysons Corner".)

[sammi]

Why would you need a complete set of accents for FHWA Series fonts when the MUTCD disallows the use of diacritics on road signs? (Hell, you're not even allowed to put the apostrophe in "Tysons Corner".)

* Sammi points towards Québec

They don't.

[jbnv]

Why would you need a complete set of accents for FHWA Series fonts when the MUTCD disallows the use of diacritics on road signs? (Hell, you're not even allowed to put the apostrophe in "Tysons Corner".)

* Sammi points towards Québec

They don't.

Not to mention the several other non-English markets where one could potentially market a font.

[J N Winkler]

Why would you need a complete set of accents for FHWA Series fonts when the MUTCD disallows the use of diacritics on road signs? (Hell, you're not even allowed to put the apostrophe in "Tysons Corner".)

* Sammi points towards Québec

They don't.

Policy may have changed with the conversion to Clearview, but back when MTQ was using the FHWA series exclusively, policy was to borrow the diacritics from Univers.

[Scott5114]

Why would you need a complete set of accents for FHWA Series fonts when the MUTCD disallows the use of diacritics on road signs? (Hell, you're not even allowed to put the apostrophe in "Tysons Corner".)

* Sammi points towards Québec

They don't.

Right, 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.

That's for the spec, anyway. It might make good sense for a type foundry to add those features to their implementation of the font. Remember, the type foundries make the actual TTF/OTF fonts from the specs just like you do. The government doesn't publish a One True FHWA Series Font file anywhere. If you can't find a TTF/OTF with the features you want, chances are it's just because it doesn't come out on the good side of a cost-benefit analysis.

Back 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.

[myosh_tino]

Why would you need a complete set of accents for FHWA Series fonts when the MUTCD disallows the use of diacritics on road signs? (Hell, you're not even allowed to put the apostrophe in "Tysons Corner".)

Really?  I didn't know that and now I'm curious as to why apostrophes are not allowed.

There are signs along CA-87 that use an apostrophe when abbreviating "International"...

[MikeTheActuary]

Another example can be found in Colorado

[Scott5114]

Relevant MUTCD chapter and verse is 2A.13¶4:

Word 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.