News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

The Clearview thread

Started by BigMattFromTexas, August 03, 2009, 05:35:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Which do you think is better: Highway Gothic or Clearview?

Highway Gothic
Clearview

J N Winkler

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 15, 2020, 12:38:55 AMClearview 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.

FHWA's requirement that the higher x-height of Clearview be used in calculating interline spacing (which almost no agency follows) is itself another attempt to kill off the typeface by making it uneconomic to use.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini


kalvado

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 15, 2020, 10:51:34 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 15, 2020, 12:38:55 AMClearview 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.

FHWA's requirement that the higher x-height of Clearview be used in calculating interline spacing (which almost no agency follows) is itself another attempt to kill off the typeface by making it uneconomic to use.
Which, to a large extent, is an indication that font size, rather than especially drawn symbols, is what drives 'increased visibility"

hbelkins



Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Dirt Roads

Quote from: hbelkins on December 15, 2020, 01:54:43 PM
Meanwhile, in Michigan...

https://www.facebook.com/MichiganDOT/posts/10158454297369927

Rabbit hole!  I worked on a project in Michigan just off the Ann Street exit of US-131 back in 1987.  We were setting up a new yard signal control on the CSX side.  When I first arrived, I found the railroad signal maintainer performing regular maintenance, while the rest of the signal gang was trying to work around him.  I noticed that the signal maintainer would drop the gates without first checking the traffic status.  As the [corporate] signal inspector, I was required to ask him the rules.  He said "Oh, this is not a busy street so we never check for traffic here" and all the guys laughed (probably at me).  Less than two minutes later, he drops the gates again during another test and a westbound big rig on Ann Street slams on his brakes in an attempt to stop at the crossing.  When I look back, I see the trailer bouncing across the tracks and huge fresh cattle bones flying everywhere.  Like immediately, I grabbed my gloves and threw a fresh pack of gloves at the gang and told them to "Quit laughing and get to work".  We had him back on the road in less than two minutes, and I was flagging traffic around him/across the crossing between bone throws.  The trucker thanked us and went on his way laughing his head off. 

Dirt Roads

Quote from: hbelkins on December 15, 2020, 01:54:43 PM
Meanwhile, in Michigan...

https://www.facebook.com/MichiganDOT/posts/10158454297369927

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 15, 2020, 02:18:11 PM
Rabbit hole!  I worked on a project in Michigan just off the Ann Street exit of US-131 back in 1987.  We were setting up a new yard signal control on the CSX side.  When I first arrived, I found the railroad signal maintainer performing regular maintenance, while the rest of the signal gang was trying to work around him.  I noticed that the signal maintainer would drop the gates without first checking the traffic status.  As the [corporate] signal inspector, I was required to ask him the rules.  He said "Oh, this is not a busy street so we never check for traffic here" and all the guys laughed (probably at me).  Less than two minutes later, he drops the gates again during another test and a westbound big rig on Ann Street slams on his brakes in an attempt to stop at the crossing.  When I look back, I see the trailer bouncing across the tracks and huge fresh cattle bones flying everywhere.  Like immediately, I grabbed my gloves and threw a fresh pack of gloves at the gang and told them to "Quit laughing and get to work".  We had him back on the road in less than two minutes, and I was flagging traffic around him/across the crossing between bone throws.  The trucker thanked us and went on his way laughing his head off.

Back to the topic, I thought that Clearview was intended to provide similar visibility as FHWA Gothic using less horizontal space.  Given my experience in transportation safety certification, I can't fathom anyone concluding that "Clearview font reduces fatal and injury crashes and increases night/weather visibility", even if the studies show reasonable evidence.

kphoger

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 15, 2020, 02:24:21 PM
"Clearview font ... increases night/weather visibility", ...

I thought that was the whole point of rolling Clearview out in the first place.  They wanted something more easily legible to elderly drivers.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

machias

Quote from: kphoger on December 15, 2020, 03:28:09 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 15, 2020, 02:24:21 PM
"Clearview font ... increases night/weather visibility", ...

I thought that was the whole point of rolling Clearview out in the first place.  They wanted something more easily legible to elderly drivers.

Yes, to make things more legible for elderly drivers, completely change the font they've been looking at for the past 75 years. That'll help.

jakeroot

Quote from: machias on December 15, 2020, 07:25:42 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 15, 2020, 03:28:09 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 15, 2020, 02:24:21 PM
"Clearview font ... increases night/weather visibility", ...

I thought that was the whole point of rolling Clearview out in the first place.  They wanted something more easily legible to elderly drivers.

Yes, to make things more legible for elderly drivers, completely change the font they've been looking at for the past 75 years. That'll help.

There's no way any more than 1 in a thousand people could tell the two apart. We are talking minor differences in legibility.

Bobby5280

Quote from: Scott5114I'd oppose requiring use of any fancy OTF features for sign design.

Native small capitals character sets would be useful for cardinal directions, given the current MUTCD calls for such an approach. Complete numerator and denominator figures (zero thru 9 in both) would allow for any possible fraction. Plenty of OpenType fonts feature those and pre-made fractions for odd spacing combinations. Such fonts often have multiple sets of digits set in either tabular lining or proportional lining.

Quote from: Scott5114Currently 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.

Truly professional quality typefaces are not produced through a kind of hobbyist, grass-roots effort. Even some open source type families hosted thru sites like Google Fonts are produced to high, professional standards by people (or teams of people) who design typefaces full time.

mrsman

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 15, 2020, 02:24:21 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 15, 2020, 01:54:43 PM
Meanwhile, in Michigan...

https://www.facebook.com/MichiganDOT/posts/10158454297369927

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 15, 2020, 02:18:11 PM
Rabbit hole!  I worked on a project in Michigan just off the Ann Street exit of US-131 back in 1987.  We were setting up a new yard signal control on the CSX side.  When I first arrived, I found the railroad signal maintainer performing regular maintenance, while the rest of the signal gang was trying to work around him.  I noticed that the signal maintainer would drop the gates without first checking the traffic status.  As the [corporate] signal inspector, I was required to ask him the rules.  He said "Oh, this is not a busy street so we never check for traffic here" and all the guys laughed (probably at me).  Less than two minutes later, he drops the gates again during another test and a westbound big rig on Ann Street slams on his brakes in an attempt to stop at the crossing.  When I look back, I see the trailer bouncing across the tracks and huge fresh cattle bones flying everywhere.  Like immediately, I grabbed my gloves and threw a fresh pack of gloves at the gang and told them to "Quit laughing and get to work".  We had him back on the road in less than two minutes, and I was flagging traffic around him/across the crossing between bone throws.  The trucker thanked us and went on his way laughing his head off.

Back to the topic, I thought that Clearview was intended to provide similar visibility as FHWA Gothic using less horizontal space.  Given my experience in transportation safety certification, I can't fathom anyone concluding that "Clearview font reduces fatal and injury crashes and increases night/weather visibility", even if the studies show reasonable evidence.

I see this as a causation/correlation problem.  It is true that the new signs are leading to fewer crashes but to suggest that the new signs (and more specifically the new font) causes fewer crashes is a fallacy.  Larger font is certainly helpful but the statement from MDOT was not likely to be helpful.

Dirt Roads

From MDOT's Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com/MichiganDOT/posts/10158454297369927
Quote
"Clearview font ... increases night/weather visibility", ...
Sorry, I mistakenly posted a direct quote from MDOT's Facebook page never thinking it would get detached from the rest of my post. 


Quote from: kphoger on December 15, 2020, 03:28:09 PM
I thought that was the whole point of rolling Clearview out in the first place.  They wanted something more easily legible to elderly drivers.
Quote from: machias on December 15, 2020, 07:25:42 PM
Yes, to make things more legible for elderly drivers, completely change the font they've been looking at for the past 75 years. That'll help.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2020, 07:44:01 PM
There's no way any more than 1 in a thousand people could tell the two apart. We are talking minor differences in legibility.

Ease of legibility is primarily a small signage issue, where the affect on metalwork size and cost is minimal.  The big impetus for the rollout of Clearview has been whacking 4 or 5 feet off the width of BGSs.  Not only does this reduce the cost of sign itself, but the wind loads on the structure are also reduced.  Like many of the others posting here, my main concern about the use of Clearview has been sloppy use of font kernals.  The early ones on the West Virginia Turnpike looked like they were pasted up in Kindergarten class.

As for the small signs, the use of bold fonts tend to blur the visibility from a distance.  I've not seen Clearview used much on street signs without the boldness.  That, plus the danglers that don't fit with the height of the sign weakens any argument about better legibility.  But when the small Clearview signs are designed properly, they do catch my eye quicker than the FHWA Gothic fonts.

kphoger

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 16, 2020, 02:33:59 PM
The big impetus for the rollout of Clearview has been whacking 4 or 5 feet off the width of BGSs.

Source?

This is the first time I recall having read that.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

stevashe

Quote from: kphoger on December 16, 2020, 02:39:27 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 16, 2020, 02:33:59 PM
The big impetus for the rollout of Clearview has been whacking 4 or 5 feet off the width of BGSs.

Source?

This is the first time I recall having read that.

In fact I recall hearing the exact opposite, that Clearview requires larger signs, and the 5-W-R variant was produced with tighter spacing so it actually fits on signs of the same size as with Series E(m).

Bobby5280

Yeah, Clearview Highway does not use less horizontal space than Series Gothic when the cap letters are set at the same size and the corresponding font weight is chosen, such as Clearview 5W in place of Series Gothic E/M. If anything Clearview 5WR consumes about the same amount of horizontal space as Series E/M, not any less. That's all thanks to tighter tracking in 5WR vs 5W.

Two different font files for two different spacing profiles is a pretty outdated approach. Some OTF Variable Fonts have Optical axis sliders, which change the letter spacing and even the letter glyphs in some cases, based on the optical size desired.

As far as legibility goes, some of the characters in Clearview are better than their counterparts in Series Gothic and vice versa. The lowercase 2-story "a" is a more legible design in Clearview since it is more opened. But Clearview's lowercase "g" has more closed off descender than the "g" in Series Gothic.

jzn110

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 10, 2019, 01:05:15 AM
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.

Michigan uses Arial on all of its state park signage, including the fancy wooden entrance signs.

Strangely, as a designer and font snob, I don't entirely hate it.

Bobby5280

The only time I have ever thought Arial looked decent on a sign was when I worked on the main gate sign for Altus Air Force Base. The Air Force branding standards dictated Arial Black be used for the polished fabricated chrome letters to be installed on the monument. The lettering was all caps and centered underneath a polished chrome Air Force bird logo. Not a bad look there. But the letters weren't distorted out of their normal proportions, like how I see Arial used on so many other commercial signs. I cannot warm up to the lowercase character set in Arial at all.

I dislike the style of Arial, dislike the motives on why it was even made (a cheaper to license alternative to Helvetica), and really hate how it is misused on commercial signs. But Monotype has put a lot of work into it. The current version of Arial bundled in Windows 10 is far more advanced in its capabilities than any of these highway fonts we've been discussing. The regular and bold weights have 4503 glyphs, the italic and bold-italic weights have 3279 glyphs each. Arial Black has only 1030 glyphs, covering just the Latin, Greek and Cyrillic ranges. At least it has native small capitals! It also has a bunch of built in symbols and various numeral sets (tabular lining, proportional lining, proportional old style, numerator/denominator figures).

Scott5114

And about 120 or so of those glyphs would actually be legal for use with the MUTCD. Why spend FHWA money designing ß or § or ☭ in FHWA Series, when none of those are allowed on US road signs to begin with? And as much as I like old-style numerals they have absolutely no place on road signs.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Dirt Roads

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 16, 2020, 02:33:59 PM
The big impetus for the rollout of Clearview has been whacking 4 or 5 feet off the width of BGSs.

Quote from: kphoger on December 16, 2020, 02:39:27 PM
Source?

This is the first time I recall having read that.

[Tail tucked between legs].  I have to admit that my main source has been from Roadgeek commentary on these forums since the rollout of Clearview, then watching for instances of it along the highways.  Signage was sometimes under my sphere of authority, and I do recall being in meetings with a client where the "sign guy"  always piped up "Or you could use Clearview"  as the answer to many unrelated issues related to signage.  But I personally have not been involved with signage issues other than content.

I also apologize if anyone was upset about my comments on the safety improvements postulated by the developer of the Clearview font.  In my world, you've got to prove any safety claims beyond a shadow of a doubt (and in many cases, we find that certain suppliers drop such claims even if they can prove them).

The follow-on posts after your comment did catch me off-guard.  After researching the differences between Clearview 5-W and Clearview 5-W-R, I am quite surprised that there was any notion that either of those fonts are comparable in width to FWHA Series E.  I do think that there is an overabundance of use of Clearview 5-W-R when 5-W should have been applied.  Just looking at the two biggest users of Clearview here in the Southeast, I've noticed that both Virginia and Georgia have replaced older signs with narrow ones — not just the border width is narrowed but also the text.   The first time I saw the "new"  Clearview signs on I-95 for (then) Exit 9 and Exit 10 (now exits 42 and 49) for Darien, I was shocked at how narrow that name appears on the sign compared to the old signs.

In Virginia the width of almost all of BGSs have been reduced significantly.  Some of that can be explained as VDOT has moved away from pre-cut blanks.  VDOT specifically allows the use of Clearview 5-W-R to narrow the width of signs for safety reasons.  It's my impression that they use it a lot, and the text is narrower than the original (not sure if it was predominantly FWHA Series E or Series E Modified).  And folks here on this thread have commented about narrow Clearview (with narrow kerning) on signs in Georgia several times (it also appears that Georgia uses narrow kerning with FHWA Series C/D/E and perhaps others).  It doesn't surprise me that TxDOT mandates the use of Clearview 5-W-R instead of 5-W.

If I switch to the smaller signs, the "75% Mistake"  seems to bear me out.  It might be a mistake, but there is no doubt that the 75% lower case letters significantly reduces the width of the sign.  Which may be why we keep seeing these signs en masse.

J N Winkler

I think there are a couple of things going on here in terms of Clearview triggering a width reduction in some jurisdictions that haven't already been mentioned.

*  One of the selling points of Clearview (especially in the heavily tested 5-W and 5-W-R typefaces) was its potential to allow agencies to avoid upgrading from 16 in capital letter height to 20 in for overhead signs.  A width reduction makes sense if the comparison is between Series E Modified with 20 in caps and 5-W with 16 in caps.

*  The interim approval for Clearview coincided with a general rolling-out of mixed-case rather than all-caps for conventional-road guide signs.  After 2009 this was mandated by the MUTCD, without any requirement for increase in capital letter height (though in fact some jurisdictions, such as Texas, took the opportunity to move to 8 in caps so that overall sign area remained about the same).  This has the potential for reduced sign width in jurisdictions that moved to mixed-case in thinner Clearview typefaces while keeping 6 in capital letter height.




I am still mulling over FHWA's suggested language for Clearview in the MUTCD.  I am not committed to their agenda (as I understand it) of getting rid of it altogether, because my main concern is that guide signs should have a compositionally neat appearance, and I consider this to be just as possible with Clearview as it is with the FHWA series.  I do recognize that in practice, Clearview has interacted with state DOT QA/QC processes (or rather the lack of them) in ways that has led to bad results.  I don't object to FHWA restricting Clearview usage to 5-W or 5-W-R on freeways and expressways, but I really think it should be paired with a similar requirement to use only Series E and Series E Modified in the same context.  I do disagree with the 84% interline spacing requirement.

TL;DR--I just don't know if this is worth the fight that would likely ensue with state DOTs in Texas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, which have a combined population of about 50 million (one-sixth the US population) and various standards that call for the use of Clearview outside the tight envelope FHWA wants to add to the MUTCD.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

kphoger

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 17, 2020, 01:21:15 PM
I don't object to FHWA restricting Clearview usage to 5-W or 5-W-R on freeways and expressways, but I really think it should be paired with a similar requirement to use only Series E and Series E Modified in the same context.

Good point.  If one is in favor of dropping Clearview because it's no improvement, then one should presumably also be in favor of dropping those standard series whose performance in the same applications would actually be worse.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Dirt Roads

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 17, 2020, 01:21:15 PM
I don't object to FHWA restricting Clearview usage to 5-W or 5-W-R on freeways and expressways, but I really think it should be paired with a similar requirement to use only Series E and Series E Modified in the same context.

Quote from: kphoger on December 17, 2020, 02:20:16 PM
Good point.  If one is in favor of dropping Clearview because it's no improvement, then one should presumably also be in favor of dropping those standard series whose performance in the same applications would actually be worse.

Agreed.  But the issues are more than just general legibility.  Clearview gets tangled up in some other issues that the MUTCD is trying to address: narrow versions shouldn't be used in "negative" contrast; Clearview shouldn't be used with all capitals; larger Clearview fonts shouldn't be used on smaller signs where the font height causes danglers and hanglers, etc., etc.  Folks have already suggested in this thread that Clearview would work just fine if Sign Engineers were involved instead of word processors.  Perhaps so, but even they seem to keep running into new problems and so the "rules of proper use" get even more complex as time goes on.  FHWA is certainly more concerned about the use of Federal highway money that results in poor quality signage.


Scott5114

This is all only an issue because Meeker & Associates sold Clearview as a panacea for improved sign legibility. Come to find out that the studies they cited for this were bunk (because they were comparing 20" Clearview against 16" FHWA Series) and when independent researchers studied it, they kept finding situations in which Clearview legibility was the same or worse. Each of those situations was then fenced off by a restriction by FHWA on Clearview use (first in the Clearview circular, and now by the proposed 2020 MUTCD language).
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Henry

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 17, 2020, 12:13:45 PM
The follow-on posts after your comment did catch me off-guard.  After researching the differences between Clearview 5-W and Clearview 5-W-R, I am quite surprised that there was any notion that either of those fonts are comparable in width to FWHA Series E.  I do think that there is an overabundance of use of Clearview 5-W-R when 5-W should have been applied.  Just looking at the two biggest users of Clearview here in the Southeast, I've noticed that both Virginia and Georgia have replaced older signs with narrow ones — not just the border width is narrowed but also the text.   The first time I saw the "new"  Clearview signs on I-95 for (then) Exit 9 and Exit 10 (now exits 42 and 49) for Darien, I was shocked at how narrow that name appears on the sign compared to the old signs.

In Virginia the width of almost all of BGSs have been reduced significantly.  Some of that can be explained as VDOT has moved away from pre-cut blanks.  VDOT specifically allows the use of Clearview 5-W-R to narrow the width of signs for safety reasons.  It's my impression that they use it a lot, and the text is narrower than the original (not sure if it was predominantly FWHA Series E or Series E Modified).  And folks here on this thread have commented about narrow Clearview (with narrow kerning) on signs in Georgia several times (it also appears that Georgia uses narrow kerning with FHWA Series C/D/E and perhaps others).  It doesn't surprise me that TxDOT mandates the use of Clearview 5-W-R instead of 5-W.

This is the first time I've ever read a post about Clearview being in GA! When did they first use it down there? Unless you're confusing it with SC, which also has lots of Clearview freeway signs itself, because throughout the past few decades I've seen Series D on the majority of GA's signs (although they've reverted back to E(M) in certain places, most of all Atlanta and its suburbs).
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

I-35

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2020, 05:23:57 PM
This is all only an issue because Meeker & Associates sold Clearview as a panacea for improved sign legibility. Come to find out that the studies they cited for this were bunk (because they were comparing 20" Clearview against 16" FHWA Series) and when independent researchers studied it, they kept finding situations in which Clearview legibility was the same or worse. Each of those situations was then fenced off by a restriction by FHWA on Clearview use (first in the Clearview circular, and now by the proposed 2020 MUTCD language).

QFT.  And I thought I had read somewhere that the reflective sheeting was different (or older) on the control Series E signs versus ones displayed in Clearview.  The TTI at Tx A&M shouldn't get a pass on this either, since I think they were involved with publishing the studies.

If I were more cynical, I'd say Clearview was a solution in search of a problem, and exists only to funnel DOT and municipality money into the pockets of one man.

machias

Quote from: Henry on December 17, 2020, 08:25:20 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 17, 2020, 12:13:45 PM
The follow-on posts after your comment did catch me off-guard.  After researching the differences between Clearview 5-W and Clearview 5-W-R, I am quite surprised that there was any notion that either of those fonts are comparable in width to FWHA Series E.  I do think that there is an overabundance of use of Clearview 5-W-R when 5-W should have been applied.  Just looking at the two biggest users of Clearview here in the Southeast, I've noticed that both Virginia and Georgia have replaced older signs with narrow ones — not just the border width is narrowed but also the text.   The first time I saw the "new"  Clearview signs on I-95 for (then) Exit 9 and Exit 10 (now exits 42 and 49) for Darien, I was shocked at how narrow that name appears on the sign compared to the old signs.

In Virginia the width of almost all of BGSs have been reduced significantly.  Some of that can be explained as VDOT has moved away from pre-cut blanks.  VDOT specifically allows the use of Clearview 5-W-R to narrow the width of signs for safety reasons.  It's my impression that they use it a lot, and the text is narrower than the original (not sure if it was predominantly FWHA Series E or Series E Modified).  And folks here on this thread have commented about narrow Clearview (with narrow kerning) on signs in Georgia several times (it also appears that Georgia uses narrow kerning with FHWA Series C/D/E and perhaps others).  It doesn't surprise me that TxDOT mandates the use of Clearview 5-W-R instead of 5-W.

This is the first time I've ever read a post about Clearview being in GA! When did they first use it down there? Unless you're confusing it with SC, which also has lots of Clearview freeway signs itself, because throughout the past few decades I've seen Series D on the majority of GA's signs (although they've reverted back to E(M) in certain places, most of all Atlanta and its suburbs).

Folks often confused Georgia D with Clearview.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.