The Clearview thread

[J N Winkler]

I have some historical perspective on the involvement of graphics designers in traffic sign design not just from the Clearview saga here in the US, which has been going on in one form or another for 20 years now, but also the transition from pre-Worboys to Worboys signs in Britain from the late 1950's to the late 1960's.

The stylized fact is that graphics designers and engineers responsible for handling traffic sign production are oil and water:  different educational backgrounds, different sets of professional standards and imperatives, different reputational constraints, and even different ways of thinking.  Graphics designers don't really want to carry out traffic sign design at the production level--they want the professional kudos of designing the system and veto power over specific designs that they think are bad.  Engineers want a framework for designing signs that will gain a certain measure of popular acceptance (they aren't really looking to court favor in the type design world) and that they can modify in certain respects to meet engineering requirements as they define them.  They generally find graphics designers tiresome to deal with--that was certainly the case with Ministry of Transport civil servants in the early 1960's who had to deal with Jock Kinneir's complaints about poorly designed signs--and think of their relationship with an outside graphics design firm as something that is limited in time and scope and ends with a handshake and "Goodbye."

It is not beyond the ability of an agency to produce sign designs that are clean and harmonious in appearance even without the involvement of a graphics designer.  This is what typically happens in state DOTs where guide sign design is handled by a specialist unit out of HQ and proposed sign designs go through multiple levels of review.  Oklahoma DOT has special problems in this regard:  signing contracts are deliberately kept small to promote small business involvement, which tends to lead to small design solicitations; PEFs that do consistently good work (e.g., TEC) handle only a small fraction of the sign design work; and QA/QC for both design and fabrication is, to be polite, very uneven.  Other states that outsource traffic sign design to the district level (often without even requiring the use of a single CAD platform) tend to struggle with similar problems, as do many turnpike agencies.

[stevashe]

If we want to get into the nit-picking on optical performance, if Clearview should be dis-allowed for highway sign use, then Series E/M needs to go as well. By the way, the lowercase letters in Clearview were originally designed with a larger x-height for lowercase characters. They're not supposed to be enlarged further by someone creating a sign layout. The larger x-height was done in part for Clearview to comply with MUTCD rules requiring lowercase letters to have an x-height at least 75% of the capital letter M-height. The lowercase characters in Series Gothic only barely comply with that rule if you measure the taller, round lowercase letters like "o." That 75% rule is probably something they should have only told to type foundries. I've seen way too many highway signs where the lowercase characters were decreased to 75% of their original height because that badly worded rule. We have street name signs all over my town infected with that stupidity (and they're set in Series Gothic).

I totally that agree E(modified) should be thrown out as well, makes no sense to keep using it given its legibility issues when used with modern types of reflective sheeting.

As for the Clearview letters, the report I mentioned in my first post (link) specifically says that is not the case, it states that Clearview was first developed with lowercase letters with the same height as Highway Gothic, and then when they could not achieve the same legibility as Highway Gothic, the size (of all letters) was increased until the legibility was equal. The capitals were then reduced back down so it could be specified at the "same" size as Highway Gothic since capital letter heights are the ones used for this purpose. This is the reason why the ascenders in Clearview are taller than the capitals. That's pretty sneaky and misleading on the designers' part if you ask me.

As for the 75% rule, this refers to the nominal height of the lowercase letters, not the actual heights of each individual lowercase letter. This is also demonstrated in that FHWA report, for both fonts:

In the end nostalgia is by far the primary reason why Series Gothic hangs on and why there is such a hostile attitude toward Clearview or any other typeface that would challenge Series Gothic's place on green highway signs.

Agreed with you on that. I have a really hard time believing that, even if the two fonts were equal in every measure (cost, ease of use), most wouldn't gravitate towards Highway Gothic on account of its age and "nostalgia" factor.

I, for one, would love to see the Tobias Frere-Jones'-developed Interstate typeface developed beyond Series E. It seems like a logical direction, assuming Clearview and/or any updated version of Clearview is on the way out. Obviously it would need to be adopted into public domain; not sure how Mr Frere-Jones would feel about that!

Of everyone would still want Highway Gothic if they were equal! If they were completely equal, then the only reason to advocate for one font over the other would be which one you like better!! Of course, outside of the pure choice of font itself, I'd also argue that changing the standard to allow multiple fonts, or worse, change which single font is allowed, would be a frivolous waste of resources.

***However, if it could be shown that Clearview (or any font) were significantly better than Highway Gothic, then I'd advocate for such a font, even if I highly disliked the look of its design.

In fact, before I was aware of the Interim Approval being rescinded, I was totally on board with Clearview taking over eventually, since I'm totally aware that Clearview had turned out to be superior, then arguing against it is purely based on roadgeek nostalgia.

As to the notion of "retraining designers," they must be using people with little if any design expertise or talent if they can't handle the differences between two type families. Considering I work with thousands of typefaces (including many subtle variations of the same typeface) and hundreds of ever changing branding programs in my work I really have zero sympathy over that issue. I see a LOT of design travesties happening on American highway signs simply because the people composing the sign layouts or bosses above them blatantly ignore the laws of geometry (hence most "neutered" Interstate shield signs sucking way way out loud).

This is what I was trying to get at when talking about the differences between graphic design and engineering. You seem to be under the impression that graphic designers are the ones designing traffic signs since you expect them to have worked with multiple fonts. That is not the case. Engineers are the ones doing traffic sign design, since as they are ultimately engineering drawings, an engineer must do this work. So I guess, in fact, you are correct when you say they have no (graphic) "design expertise or talent", because they aren't graphic designers! The only fonts they will have ever worked with are the different series variations of Highway Gothic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Bobby5280]

The stylized fact is that graphics designers and engineers responsible for handling traffic sign production are oil and water:  different educational backgrounds, different sets of professional standards and imperatives, different reputational constraints, and even different ways of thinking.  Graphics designers don't really want to carry out traffic sign design at the production level--they want the professional kudos of designing the system and veto power over specific designs that they think are bad.  Engineers want a framework for designing signs that will gain a certain measure of popular acceptance (they aren't really looking to court favor in the type design world) and that they can modify in certain respects to meet engineering requirements as they define them.

I don't know how many state DOTs employ people trained in graphic design (as opposed to traffic engineers) to compose traffic sign layouts. In Oklahoma's case I'm guessing not many. And if the "layout artists" have the implied benefit of GuideSign's CAD layout templates that makes the abominations in traffic sign design ODOT produces even that much more embarrassing.

Nevertheless, there's lots of principals in graphic design that are proven to work in sign design. Those principals carry over to traffic sign use just like they do with billboards, one sheet posters or any other outdoor advertising medium.

In commercial sign design for businesses there's not a lot of "professional kudos" to be handed out for that kind of work, even on the national scale. And each individual sign designer is very different in levels of talent and qualification. There is no standards board conducting tests and handing out certifications. Some commercial sign designers are very good and then there's others who would do us all a favor by choosing a different career path. Some companies have standards for who they hire. Other low-cost outfits only require the computer jockey to have a pulse.

For me personally, legibility is the top concern in designing signs for commercial businesses or institutions like the US Army, non-profit groups, etc. If you can't read an outdoor sign at an acceptable distance while driving your vehicle then the sign is crap. Unfortunately there are many variables that creep into the picture. The client wants to put too many elements in the layout, such as instantly forgettable elements like phone numbers. The client doesn't want a sign that big or that expensive. Make it smaller, make it non-lighted and cut the price. Some clients do their own DIY logos and sign layouts, usually to varying degrees of failure. But you have to make their crap somehow "work" anyway. At times the job is like trying to solve a crossword puzzle without half the clues or half the letters in the alphabet. And you often have to re-invent the wheel with each project.

As for the Clearview letters, the report I mentioned in my first post (link) specifically says that is not the case, it states that Clearview was first developed with lowercase letters with the same height as Highway Gothic, and then when they could not achieve the same legibility as Highway Gothic, the size (of all letters) was increased until the legibility was equal. The capitals were then reduced back down so it could be specified at the "same" size as Highway Gothic since capital letter heights are the ones used for this purpose. This is the reason why the ascenders in Clearview are taller than the capitals. That's pretty sneaky and misleading on the designers' part if you ask me.

The biggest offending factor in Clearivew is letters of the same size and width as Series Gothic require a wider sign panel. Meeker and Associates should have figured out ways to make the typeface more legible while matching the metrics of Series Gothic.

I really hate the Arial typeface with a passion. It's an ugly typeface on its own, but my hatred for it is also rooted in its chronic misuse in commercial sign design. It begins with "A" so it's near the top of the font list. As a result, many hack, wannabe sign designers use it constantly. And they artificially squeeze and stretch it to fit any space, regardless of the fact they likely have dozens of different sans serif faces at the ready, with native condensed, narrow, extended or wide widths that would look more professional. Nope. Just go with Arial.

Anyway, the one thing Monotype did right with Arial when they created it is they made it match the width and metrics of Helvetica. You could lay out a column of body copy in the 1950's cut of Helvetica then switch it to Arial and it wouldn't use any more or less column space. Microsoft licensed Arial specifically on that feature when they launched the Windows OS. It matched the geometry of Helvetica, but at a lower licensing cost than what Linotype wanted for Helvetica.

As for the 75% rule, this refers to the nominal height of the lowercase letters, not the actual heights of each individual lowercase letter.

To me, the x-height value is the literal height of the lowercase "x." That especially goes for any geometric sans whose baseline and lowercase heights have a clear, horizontal cut to them (which is the case for both Series Gothic and Clearview Highway). Nudging nominal values based on how much the lowercase "o" overshoots the baseline or x-height line doesn't really matter. And then there's the established, specific dimensions in the font files themselves.

This is what I was trying to get at when talking about the differences between graphic design and engineering. You seem to be under the impression that graphic designers are the ones designing traffic signs since you expect them to have worked with multiple fonts. That is not the case. Engineers are the ones doing traffic sign design, since as they are ultimately engineering drawings, an engineer must do this work. So I guess, in fact, you are correct when you say they have no (graphic) "design expertise or talent", because they aren't graphic designers! The only fonts they will have ever worked with are the different series variations of Highway Gothic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In the end, whoever is composing the layouts at least has to acknowledge what he is seeing with his own two eyes and be able to judge if the layout just looks laughably stupid.

Let's take "neutered" Interstate shields for instance. I think I can guess pretty easily how these stupid things came into existence. The motivation is pretty clear. Some executive or bean counter or whoever was in charge decided the numerals on Interstate shields needed to be the same size as numerals on US Highway route markers of the same size. I would be surprised if a traffic engineer was behind that decision.

Neutered Interstate shields suck in any objective judgment. The curved shape of the shield frequently forces numerals into very crowded and out of balance arrangements. And that greatly reduces the level of legibility. If it was up to me I would stick with state name Interstate markers but use larger Interstate shields over the top of smaller US highway and state highway route markers on ground mounted reassurance post signs. The same goes for big green signs. Funny enough, ODOT here does that in a decent number of cases. There's a few state-named I-44 reassurance markers in Lawton with larger Interstate shields and smaller US highway markers underneath on two posts. Nothing wrong with that. But if a 24" Interstate shield must have digits the same size as those in a 24" US highway marker, then the current design of the Interstate highway shield has to be tossed out and completely re-done to create acceptable geometry.

[jakeroot]

I find the FHWA signs to be far more aesthetically pleasing here than the Clearview ones.  At least the numbers in the interstate shield aren't Clearview.  In BC, even route numbers use it.

BC route numbers are supposed to be Helvetica, though some Clearview numbers do slip through the crack from time to time, given how normal the typeface otherwise is.

Highway Gothic isn't totally dead in BC, but Clearview has replaced it in many places I hadn't yet thought of (photo by me):

[Scott5114]

Guess what may end up in the 11e MUTCD? I swear, this font is like a damn hydra.

In Appendix A1, FHWA proposes to retitle the section to "Congressional Actions"  and add a new option to allow an alternative letter style for destination legends on freeway and expressway guide signs.  For clarity in application, FHWA designates this letter style, commonly referred to as "Clearview 5-W,"  as "Series E (modified)-Alternative."   In concert with this change, FHWA proposes a Standard provision to define the applicability and scope of this letter style because the design criteria differ from those of the Standard Alphabets.  FHWA proposes these provisions to address the operational effect of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 that required FHWA to, "...reinstate Interim Approval IA—5, relating to the provisional use of an alternative lettering style on certain highway guide signs, as it existed before its termination, as announced in the Federal Register on January 25, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 4083)."   FHWA requests comments on the proposed revisions to Appendix A1 as well as the proposal to add "Series E (modified)-Alternative"  to Appendix A1.

FHWA granted Interim Approval (IA-5) to use Clearview 5-W in certain applications on September 2, 2004, based on early research that suggested improvements in sign legibility.  FHWA rescinded this Interim Approval on January 25, 2016, after subsequent research and a more thorough review of the early research finding showed no discernable improvement.  In addition, it became apparent that having a separate optional letter style with different design criteria caused confusion in sign design and layouts resulting in inappropriate and sometime ineffective signs.  However, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2018 (section 125 of Division L) required FHWA to reinstate Interim Approval IA-5 for that fiscal year.  In addition, the Joint Explanatory Statement House Report 115-237133 directed FHWA to conduct a comprehensive review of the research on this alternative font and report on the safety and cost implications of the decision while fully addressing the comments submitted by affected States during the December 13, 2016, Request for Information related to the alternative font.  FHWA reviewed the comments submitted and conducted a comprehensive analysis of all research identified as being associated with the alternative font and submitted the Report on Highway Guide Sign Fonts to Congress with the findings of these reviews.  As a result of this Congressional action, FHWA reinstated Interim Approval IA-5 on March 18, 2018.  Though not required, Interim Approval IA-5 has been allowed to continue past the end of that fiscal year so that FHWA could request comments on potential inclusion of this alternative letter style as part of the MUTCD.

The public comment period starts on Monday, December 14.

[hbelkins]

^^^
So who wants to translate that into English?

[Roadsguy]

The public comment period starts on Monday, December 14.

Oh, I have some choice public comments alright...

[J N Winkler]

^^^ So who wants to translate that into English?

I'll try:  FHWA proposes to add Clearview 5-W (under a new name indicating it is an alternate to Series E Modified) to the MUTCD with Standard language tightly circumscribing allowable applications, but is secretly hoping that commenters will urge killing Clearview altogether.

[Bobby5280]

Considering how many years have passed since the Clearview effort first started (in the 1990's) the FHWA might as well go back to the drawing board with their efforts to modernize typography on traffic signs. A lot has happened with typography and font technology in the past 20 years. Sign industry-specific software is also stuck in the 1990's.

[machias]

Clearview aside, sign design software seems to be doing more of a disservice than making signing practices better. It's been only since sign design software that we've seen an increase in bad sign layouts, wrongly sized lower case lettering (in relation to upper case lettering in the same legend), and weird stretching of letters. This is all because agencies think the sign design software is the same as using Microsoft Word. Designing a safe, quality sign requires the skill of a civil engineer. The use of design software should be a supplement to the process, not the replacement. An interchange guide sign is not a powerpoint slide.

[Bobby5280]

Misuse of software is one variable in bad sign layouts, but there are plenty of other variables that complicate the situation.

With traffic signs, I'm 100% certain that politics and funding battles affect the final product. I see plenty of sign panels that are barely big enough to hold the message. Or they try to cram additional listings on an existing panel. Both problems are obviously motivated by cost cutting. Here in Lawton they were using street name panels meant only for uppercase lettering yet sticking mixed case copy on them, often shrinking the lowercase letters to 75% of their original size. They would shift the lowercase letters above the baseline to fit letters with descenders. Really stupid looking garbage. They have only recently started using taller street name panels.

I would not be surprised if various highway sign departments had civil engineers punting some or even a lot of the design grunt work to lesser paid, lesser qualified people and merely supervising the results. Again, it's about saving money.

In the commercial side of the sign industry there really are no qualifications needed to enter the field. There is a very wide range of differences in terms of talent and design knowledge from one sign designer to the next. Some sign companies will hire people just on the basis of an applicant willing to work for low pay. The better companies will hire designers that have formal training or degrees and good portfolios of work examples. Generally the designers with formal training are going to be more productive from the outset and care about the quality of their work. But it all comes down to each sign company and its motivations. There are plenty of sign companies only interested in selling cheap garbage. I'm pretty concerned about the growing trend of cities adopting very restrictive sign codes. IMHO, some of that is borne out of a backlash against ugly signs and poorly maintained signs. Well designed custom signs can add character to a city's business districts. Ugly signs contribute to blight.

[Scott5114]

Given that the layout of a road sign is so rules-based, and is likely to be even more so under MUTCD 11e, it would be trivial for sign design software to have an autofit feature that automatically calculates proper interline spacing, margins, and panel size from given legend. The question is why, if such a feature exists, designers don't use it.

[Bobby5280]

I doubt such an autofit feature exists in traffic sign software. And if the feature did exist chances are many users would disable it in order to compose layouts in the manner being dictated by various constraints, such as a sign panel being too small for its message. Artificially squeezing letters is one trick to get the text to fit the space. Another is tightening the letter spacing.

[hbelkins]

^^^ So who wants to translate that into English?

I'll try:  FHWA proposes to add Clearview 5-W (under a new name indicating it is an alternate to Series E Modified) to the MUTCD with Standard language tightly circumscribing allowable applications, but is secretly hoping that commenters will urge killing Clearview altogether.

But what if Congress continues to mandate its inclusion as an acceptable option?

[Scott5114]

Here is the proposed MUTCD text:

Option:
Series E(modified)-Alternate may be used in place of Series E(modified) for the names of places, streets, and highways on freeway and expressway guide signs in accordance with the provisions of the following paragraph.
Standard:
The use of Series E(modified)-Alternate shall be limited to the display of names of places, streets, and highways on freeway and expressway guide signs. Words shall be composed of lower-case letters with initial upper-case letters. The design and spacing of the letters shall be as provided in the "Standard Highway Signs"  publication (see Section 1A.11 of this Manual). The nominal loop height of the lower-case letters shall be 84 percent of the height of the initial upper-case letter. Interline spacing, measured from the baseline of the upper line of legend to the upper limit of the initial upper-case letter of the lower line of legend, shall be at least 96 percent of the initial upper-case letters (equivalent to 84 percent of the initial upper-case letter when measured from the baseline of the upper line of legend to the upper limit of the rising stems of the lower-case letters of the lower line of legend). Edge spacing shall be as provided in Section 2E.13 of this Manual. The size of the sign shall be suitably enlarged to accommodate the larger lower-case letters and interline spacing. When the name of a place, street, or highway contains numerals, the numerals shall be composed of the FHWA Standard Alphabet Series E(modified). Other lettering on the sign, such as for cardinal directions and distance or action messages, and all numerals or special characters, shall be composed of Series B, C, D, E, E(modified), or F of the FHWA Standard Alphabets as provided in this Manual. Series E(modified)-Alternate shall not be used for any application other than as provided in the two preceding paragraphs.

Only place names, street names, and highway names, and only on freeway (not conventional-road) guide signs? That must sting for Clearview fans. This is even more restrictive than the old Clearview circular. One wonders what the point of including it even is.

But what if Congress continues to mandate its inclusion as an acceptable option?

What if Congress mandates that KYTC sign all little green shrubs on US-31W?

In any event, the law that required its inclusion expired in FY 2018, and Congress has shown no interest in renewing it; I believe the member that inserted the language into the bill is no longer an active member of Congress. FHWA has kept the IA in place since then as a goodwill gesture.

[Pink Jazz]

I wonder if ADOT will re-adopt Clearview (soon to be Series E-Modified (Alternate)) if it is approved in the new MUTCD.  ADOT has been holding off on it due to its uncertain future, but since ADOT has already paid for Clearview, I wonder if they might re-adopt it.

[Scott5114]

There wouldn't be much left to adopt. If it is added to the new MUTCD–which is up in the air, as the public comment period is open through March–it is entirely possible that states will question the utility of coming up with a policy to allow use of a different font on one or two lines of each sign and decide the trouble of ensuring compliance isn't worth it.

I expect TxDOT to continue to use it for everything, no matter what the MUTCD says, at least until FHWA of Texas slaps them down.

[J N Winkler]

Given that the layout of a road sign is so rules-based, and is likely to be even more so under MUTCD 11e, it would be trivial for sign design software to have an autofit feature that automatically calculates proper interline spacing, margins, and panel size from given legend. The question is why, if such a feature exists, designers don't use it.

I doubt such an autofit feature exists in traffic sign software. And if the feature did exist chances are many users would disable it in order to compose layouts in the manner being dictated by various constraints, such as sign panel too small for its message. Artificially squeezing letters is one trick to get the text to fit the space. Another is tightening the letter spacing.

I find it hard to believe that commercial sign design software like SignCAD and GuidSIGN doesn't have autofit.  Pretty much all of the CorelDRAW scripts I have for making sign mockups are some variation of autofit--some to secure the proper space padding and others to draw panel borders around finished legend blocks.

I suspect the inelegant manipulations we all dislike (departing from default kerning, stretching or compressing fonts along one axis only, etc.) are largely driven by a desire to accommodate external constraints such as panel size, post count, etc.  Additionally, some of the design approaches that are now mandated (such as APLs) have certain inflexibilities that come into play with long legend.

But what if Congress continues to mandate its inclusion as an acceptable option?

What if Congress mandates that KYTC sign all little green shrubs on US-31W?

In any event, the law that required its inclusion expired in FY 2018, and Congress has shown no interest in renewing it; I believe the member that inserted the language into the bill is no longer an active member of Congress. FHWA has kept the IA in place since then as a goodwill gesture.

If Congress mandates that Clearview be part of the MUTCD, then FHWA will of course have no choice but to comply, since the legal framework for the MUTCD itself (secondary legislation--or, to be more precise, a document that is included by reference in such legislation) is established by Acts of Congress (primary legislation).

It is my belief that the FHWA officials who want to get rid of Clearview made the very deliberate decision not to pull the plug on it (again) after the 2018 appropriations measure expired, precisely because they did not want to provoke Congress into making Clearview permanent, possibly through another rider to a must-pass bill.  And the proposed Clearview text does seem designed to make it very unattractive to use while avoiding the appearance of banning it altogether.

[Bobby5280]

I find it hard to believe that commercial sign design software like SignCAD and GuidSIGN doesn't have autofit.  Pretty much all of the CorelDRAW scripts I have for making sign mockups are some variation of autofit--some to secure the proper space padding and others to draw panel borders around finished legend blocks.

Such a feature is do-able, but it would only be worthwhile if implemented properly. For instance, the legends on traffic signs have to specifically sized and positioned according to the cap height of the letters, not the overall physical size of the type object. Letter size is often dictated by the sign type. Letters like "O," "S" or "g" overshoot the baseline and cap height line, affecting the overall physical size. Any kind of auto-enlarging box around a type object would need to orient its size and vertical alignment in relation to the legend according to the legend's cap height. If the feature doesn't work like that then the feature would be garbage.

CorelDRAW does not let users set letter sizes according to cap height in the Text Properties palette or the property bar on top. CorelDRAW is still mostly a print-oriented application where page layout is all about points and distance from one baseline to the next in a grid. Sign design doesn't work like that. Cap height matters there. If I want some letters to be 6 inches tall I literally have to type out a squared letter like "E," numerically set it at the desired physical size, position it specifically and then type out the desired text. There are other ways to go about this, but they're all work-arounds to get the desired result.

Adobe recently incorporated some new type features in Adobe Illustrator that allow users to set letter sizes according to cap height and x-height in addition to the normal Em square methods. Plus they have new object snapping functions in relation to text objects. There is still some room for improvement. But those new type features in combination with the new large canvas mode (art boards up to 2275" X 2275") make full size sign design within Adobe Illustrator much easier.

An auto-fit feature would be most useful within SignCAD or GuidSign for traffic sign designs. Such an auto-fit feature might take a dump on itself with those neutered Interstate shields. I would see less value for such a feature within CorelDRAW, Illustrator or industry-specific sign design applications (Flexi, Gerber Omega, SignLab, etc). In commercial sign design the physical size of sign panels can be critical, especially when lighted cabinets are involved. Material size limits and the client's budget can be non-flexible limits. The lettering and graphics have to be adjusted for the space. But commercial sign designers have far more choices in how to make those adjustments. New features like OpenType Variable Fonts can lead to better designs.

[J N Winkler]

I find it hard to believe that commercial sign design software like SignCAD and GuidSIGN doesn't have autofit.  Pretty much all of the CorelDRAW scripts I have for making sign mockups are some variation of autofit--some to secure the proper space padding and others to draw panel borders around finished legend blocks.

Such a feature is do-able, but it would only be worthwhile if implemented properly. For instance, the legends on traffic signs have to specifically sized and positioned according to the cap height of the letters, not the overall physical size of the type object. Letter size is often dictated by the sign type. Letters like "O," "S" or "g" overshoot the baseline and cap height line, affecting the overall physical size. Any kind of auto-enlarging box around a type object would need to orient its size and vertical alignment in relation to the legend according to the legend's cap height. If the feature doesn't work like that then the feature would be garbage.

My scripts don't parse text objects for descenders, which are the only real concern with the FHWA series.  My bodge is basically just to substitute letters of equal width without descenders--e.g., b for p, v for y, and so on--as needed for aligning and panel-drawing operations where the results would be affected by the presence of descenders, and then simply put back in the correct letters when I am finished.

With Clearview it is much more difficult and there functionality to parse text objects for characters would be useful.  Clearview has at least two levels of ascender above the caps line.  I've gotten used to composing "shadow" Series E Modified legend blocks that I use as positioning controls around the identical legend in Clearview.

An auto-fit feature would be most useful within SignCAD or GuidSign for traffic sign designs. Such an auto-fit feature might take a dump on itself with those neutered Interstate shields. I would see less value for such a feature within CorelDRAW, Illustrator or industry-specific sign design applications (Flexi, Gerber Omega, SignLab, etc).

It is my belief that GuidSIGN, SignCAD, etc. do already have autofit functionality, or at bare minimum the ability to draw panel edges around legend blocks according to certain constraints the designer can choose (such as panel height being in increments of 6 in or 12 in).  What I have made for CorelDRAW consists of basic box-drawing and aligning scripts that I downloaded long ago from Oberon Place (a CorelDRAW users' site) and adapted for use drawing traffic signs.  These are not intended for actual production--I've used them mainly to make sign mockups for this forum (example).

[Henry]

IIRC, these are the FHWA and Clearview equivalents:

Series B -- Clearview 1-B/1-W
Series C -- Clearview 2-B/2-W
Series D -- Clearview 3-B/3-W
Series E -- Clearview 4-B/4-W
Series E(M)/EE(M) -- Clearview 5-B/5-W/5-WR
Series F -- Clearview 6-B/6-W

[Bobby5280]

My scripts don't parse text objects for descenders, which are the only real concern with the FHWA series.

Curved capital letters (C, G, J, O, Q, S, U) overshoot the baseline and/or cap height line in Series Gothic as well as the vast majority of other typefaces. Some speciality display fonts with tough or technical looks might have cap letters all in the same size. For example this is true with a typeface like Bank Gothic (bundled with CorelDRAW) but not with Series Gothic or Clearview Highway. That's why, in CorelDRAW, I start out with a dummy letter like "E," size it to the desired size and either use that dummy letter to type into or copy its attributes to other text strings nearby. CorelDRAW has an align to baseline function for type objects, which is really handy for quickly aligning and distributing type objects in a new design or template. Obviously this approach doesn't work on every typeface. Many serif "text" typefaces have lots of subtle features that rise above the cap height line and dip below the baseline.

All computer-based font files have built-in dimensions establishing the baseline, x-height line, cap height line as well as ascender and descender values. Those values are set within a UPM size (Units Per Em). The UPM size can vary from one font file to the next. Most fonts tend to be drawn in a 1000 UPM value (common with Postscript fonts). Then you get something like Arial, which has a 2048 UPM value (common with some TrueType fonts). Clearview Highway has a 1448 UPM value, with TrueType outlines. I see those values by opening the font files in FontLab Studio. It's possible for design software to examine a font file's built-in dimensions to automatically extrapolate a correct cap height value. For Clearview, the cap height is 1011, x-height is 817, ascender is 1313, descender is -447; baseline obviously is zero. Funny thing: when you open a font like Clearview 5WR in FontLab Studio you'll see the cap height on a glyph like "E" or "T" falls a little below the font's cap height line. And those curved letters like "O" still overshoot it. Go figure.

Extracting the distance between baseline and cap height line in a font file to set a proper cap letter size will work with most fonts. But it won't work with others. There's a decent number of text fonts and script fonts where both the x-height and cap height lines are set well above where they should be. Bickham Script Pro is a really beautiful script typeface with very impressive OpenType features. But its dimensions are a joke. The cap height line is way above the logical tops of the letters. I think this is due to the really large swash alternate glyphs present in the typeface.

It is my belief that GuidSIGN, SignCAD, etc. do already have autofit functionality, or at bare minimum the ability to draw panel edges around legend blocks according to certain constraints the designer can choose (such as panel height being in increments of 6 in or 12 in).

I couldn't say for myself since I don't have licenses for either one of those applications. But it would make sense for either of those applications to confine sign panel sizes in increments of 6" or 12". In Oklahoma most big green sign panels are made with those 12" tall extruded metal bars that are bolted together to make one big panel. The bars are usually ordered in specific widths and not something a sign shop would want to manually trim to some random size.

In mainstream vector graphics applications or commercial sign industry specific applications the user just sets the panel size based on his judgment, be it through specific numerical dimensions and positioning or just eye-balling it by hand. I prefer being very specific about it. The eyeball approach is for hacks, IMHO.

[Scott5114]

Differences in cap height and ascender/descender measurements are kind of academic in MUTCD-based design because text sizes for a given context are specified in cap heights in inches. Interline spacing is specified as the distance from one baseline to the cap height line of the next line down, and is always equal to the x-height. Thus, given a certain cap height, one can easily calculate a bounding box for a line of text, the vertical extents of which will always be the same, regardless of the actual text being set.

This is made even simpler by the fact that the x-height of FHWA Series is 3/4 that of the cap height. This x-height is a very nice creature comfort. Trafikkalfabetet has an x-height of 5/7, and thus Norwegian sign layouts are infected with tons of odd sevenths that propagate through the design as a direct result of this choice. American sign designers have tended to handle Clearview's 21/25 x-height by ignoring it and calculating line spacing using FHWA Series's 3/4 x-height, which would be against the proposed MUTCD text.

[Bobby5280]

Differences in cap height and ascender/descender measurements are kind of academic in MUTCD-based design because all text sizes are specified in cap height. Interline spacing is specified as the distance from one baseline to the cap height line of the next line down, and is always equal to the x-height.

Nevertheless, the cap letters with curved features (such as "O") overshoot the baseline and cap height line. Not all sign design software lets designers set letter sizes according to cap height accurately. Often the designers must do things like the kludge approaches I described earlier to set cap letter sizes correctly. Even if the design application is extracting the font file's built-in dimensions correctly the letters within the font file may not conform to the defined baselines and cap height lines (as is the case with Clearview Highway).

Regarding the 3/4 rule, thankfully I never have to bother with that. If a typeface must have an x-height 3/4 the size of the cap height that must be built into the design of the typeface itself. There should NEVER be an instance where a designer has to artificially scale lowercase letters to fit such a rule. Doing so totally botches the stroke balance between the capital letters and lowercase letters. The user might as well be typing with two different typefaces when doing that. It's totally unacceptable.

If we want to get into nit-pick territory, Clearview Highway's lowercase set overshoots the 3/4 barrier while Series Gothic comes up short. The lowercase "x" is less than 75% the height of a cap letter "E" or "M". Only when you select a glyph like "o" does Series Gothic barely hit that 75% level.

We're over 20 years into this nonsense now. Given how technology has changed, particularly with new developments such as OTF Variable Fonts and the design flexibility they offer, I think the FHWA should just start over. The current effort is badly outdated.

[Scott5114]

Nobody else has to bother with the 3/4 rule either; this is baked into the design of FHWA Series and so anyone just setting the cap size and going will automatically comply with the rule. The problem is that some designers see that rule and hypercorrect it by taking 3/4 of 3/4 and end up with an x-height of 9/16–clarifying this is something that is worth trying to get changed in the public comment period.

Clearview uses an 84% (21/25) x-height, and the rules for its use specify this is fine and doesn't need to be changed. The x-height is also supposed to be used for interline spacing, but this is usually ignored in favor of keeping the 3/4 spacing used with FHWA Series.

I'd oppose requiring use of any fancy OTF features for sign design. Currently FHWA just provides the glyphs they want to be used and allow the private sector to develop the actual TTF/OTF files. This means that typefaces are accessible not only to contractors but hobbyists as well; not once but twice people on this board have used the published glyphs to build their own FHWA Series implementation from scratch. Most OTF features would be technology for technology's sake and not actually helpful to designing a road sign to existing MUTCD standards.