In Design of a Signage Typeface (http://ilovetypography.com/2012/04/19/the-design-of-a-signage-typeface/), Rolf Herrmann talks about how he designed a new font optimized for reading 300 yards away.
He discusses an interesting tool that simulates highway viewing conditions (instead of testing in the field with sign after sign). He's convinced of its validity: "When presenting my work in progress at conferences, I was often asked about scientific proofs for the legibility of my typeface. Personally, I didn't feel that I needed such proof. I had based my work on a solid theoretical framework, and with my Legibility Test Tool I could simulate the very worst viewing conditions possible."
Interesting, though w/o the scientific proof he claims isn't needed, I doubt it will even ever reach the "interim" status that Clearview has.
The other issue I have with these alternate typefaces is aesthetics. I know legibility always comes first, it should, but there's just something particularly pleasing about the FHWA Series fonts that some of the others lack. (Maybe it's the uniform width strokes, I dunno.)
I think he just needs to reword it, because what he is doing does constitute a form of scientific testing.
He has some cool flickr galleries full of road signs from across the world linked from the article.
I dunno, I like it better than Clearview. Though that 7 needs to go. Not as good as FHWA Series though.
(1) I'm not entirely thrilled with the German eszett (ß). Maybe it should be less angular, to distinguish it more from the letter B?
(2) I assume he chose the 'open-topped' lowercase Greek phi due to legibility issues, but for some unexplainable reason I would prefer the old 'closed' one.
(3) I would open up the cedilla more (as used on the French ç); in fact, I'm surprised there aren't legibility issues with it as it is.
(4) Not sure a dot in the zero is necessary, considering the letter O is so much wider than the numeral 0.
(5) If these ever make their way onto road signs, then the boxy U-turn symbols would need to be replaced with curved lines. I am, however, a big fan of the arrows in Stylistic Set 3.
All in all, though, I'm impressed.
Quote from: Quillz on April 27, 2012, 04:08:20 AM
....
The other issue I have with these alternate typefaces is aesthetics. I know legibility always comes first, it should, but there's just something particularly pleasing about the FHWA Series fonts that some of the others lack. (Maybe it's the uniform width strokes, I dunno.)
I don't necessarily agree as to "pleasing." I find them rather ugly, on the whole, except for the modified Series D in use in Georgia, which I've always found to be one of the best-looking typefaces on the road. I think it's more a case of familiarity. When you see something new, you notice it immediately, even if you're not familiar with what was changed. I know a number of non-roadgeek types who have commented about the newer Clearview signs on the Beltway simply because the FHWA fonts are so ubiquitous that the change ought to be readily-apparent to most people. I suppose that sort of principle might be one reason why I like the signs in Georgia–I drive there a lot less often now than I did 20 years ago and therefore don't see their signs very often, so they catch my eye when I'm there.
Clearview is in fairly heavy use here in Northern Virginia and I've found that when it's done well (the new signs on I-495) it can look pretty good, but when it's done poorly (newer signs on I-395 and on VA-27) it's absolutely hideous. The old FHWA fonts seem not to suffer from the same level of inconsistent implementation from sign to sign.