http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/opinion/easy-reading-road-signs-head-to-the-offramp.html
Then author needs to learn about Enhanced E-Modified and how it is superior to both Clearview and Series E-Modified and how the initial results for Clearview were gamed to fix the field for Clearview.
Quote from: Brandon on February 26, 2016, 12:08:13 PM
Then author needs to learn about Enhanced E-Modified and how it is superior to both Clearview and Series E-Modified and how the initial results for Clearview were gamed to fix the field for Clearview.
He also claims to be a civil engineer. For every study out of TTI and Penn State touting the benefits of Clearview, there are 3 on the shortcomings. Being in NYC, he wouldn't necessarily see the font at highway speeds on unlit roads, where the issues appear. Go a little upstate and see NYSTA's Clearview at night and see if you still like it.
The solution to this problem would obviously be for the FHWA to expand the Highway Gothic series to better meet the needs of old drivers.
Series E(M) is ugly. It's fat. It doesn't bode well with older drivers with declining eyesight. Series E(EM) is ever so slightly better than E(M), but it still suffers the same problems that E(M) has with the fact that it doesn't work for older drivers as well as Clearview did.
Try a different font, maybe Akkurat. Or, do like the UK did and use Transport. There are plenty of options.
(https://lineto.com/img/media/1698.jpg?0)
See, it's gorgeous.
Ugly/gorgeous is subjective and therefore not really a criterion that should be taken into account.
Quote from: wolfiefrick on February 26, 2016, 12:28:23 PM
The solution to this problem would obviously be for the FHWA to expand the Highway Gothic series to better meet the needs of old drivers.
Series E(M) is ugly. It's fat. It doesn't bode well with older drivers with declining eyesight. Series E(EM) is ever so slightly better than E(M), but it still suffers the same problems that E(M) has with the fact that it doesn't work for older drivers as well as Clearview did.
Try a different font, maybe Akkurat. Or, do like the UK did and use Transport. There are plenty of options.
Puke. Transport is, IMHO, one of the ugliest fonts out there.
According to the author, he feels that roads are safer with Clearview. How? FHWA usage restricted it so heavily, the large majority of signs should have still used Highway Gothic. No warning or regulatory signs should have used it. I see this just as a huge bias to biased tests. E-E(M) or just E(M) works well and is more versatile than Clearview. Not to mention the license fees and all that.
Let's bear in mind here that the NY Times is a for-profit publication and they are therefore going to put a spin on the story which will appeal to their readers. "Big bad government says stop using this font that helps poor old ladies see better" generates more clicks than telling the story from a neutral point of view.
Furthermore, very few people outside of the roadgeek community actively dislike Clearview, so spinning the story in a positive light would not be an effective populist appeal.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 27, 2016, 12:45:15 PMFurthermore, very few people outside of the roadgeek community actively dislike Clearview, so spinning the story in a positive light would not be an effective populist appeal.
On the other hand, how many non-roadgeeks actually prefered Clearview, or heck, even really noticed the changes? My guess is the general population just doesn't care either way, as long as they can read the signs.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on February 28, 2016, 08:01:39 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 27, 2016, 12:45:15 PMFurthermore, very few people outside of the roadgeek community actively dislike Clearview, so spinning the story in a positive light would not be an effective populist appeal.
On the other hand, how many non-roadgeeks actually prefered Clearview, or heck, even really noticed the changes? My guess is the general population just doesn't care either way, as long as they can read the signs.
My parents don't like it, but that's also related to NYSTA's poor application. Hard to like the signs if you can't read them at night or when the sun is in certain spots.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 27, 2016, 12:45:15 PM
Let's bear in mind here that the NY Times is a for-profit publication and they are therefore going to put a spin on the story which will appeal to their readers. "Big bad government says stop using this font that helps poor old ladies see better" generates more clicks than telling the story from a neutral point of view.
Furthermore, very few people outside of the roadgeek community actively dislike Clearview, so spinning the story in a positive light would not be an effective populist appeal.
It's an op-ed piece by a moderately popular author on what most people consider a curiosity at best, not an objective news piece nor, apparently, a subject for which one was deemed necessary.
I'm all for easier-to-read signs and all, but I think this is rushing too quickly to judgement. Perhaps they should bring back the button-copy signs, or at least try to replicate them. I like Akkurat a lot, and perhaps this should be the new font of choice for future signage.
No responsible, credentialed engineer would say "the data demonstrates one thing" but "I feel that the opposite is true."
Quote from: briantroutman on March 01, 2016, 10:52:24 AM
No responsible, credentialed engineer would say "the data demonstrates one thing" but "I feel that the opposite is true."
That was my point by highlighting that the author is supposedly an engineer. The data says what the data says. You can discount one study. You can't discount several, especially if there are as many as or more "bad" studies than "good".
Quote from: cl94 on March 01, 2016, 11:33:34 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on March 01, 2016, 10:52:24 AM
No responsible, credentialed engineer would say "the data demonstrates one thing" but "I feel that the opposite is true."
That was my point by highlighting that the author is supposedly an engineer. The data says what the data says. You can discount one study. You can't discount several, especially if there are as many as or more "bad" studies than "good".
I've seen people here dismiss his work harshly, though I've never read it.
That said, perception is personal and subjective, and it is worth including his in an
opinion piece that deals with a subject to which perception is central.