The Clearview thread

[J N Winkler]

Under the MUTCD interim approval process, FHWA technically did have the discretion to yank Clearview interim approval without any consultation.  But considering the amount of money states had invested in Clearview upgrades and the lack of a clear path back to pre-Clearview signing standards owing to the new requirement for mixed-case legend in the 2009 MUTCD, it would have been politic for FHWA to lay the groundwork for Clearview revocation by issuing a notice of intent to do so and taking public and agency comment on the most expeditious way of doing it.  Often a straight march to the apparent technocratic solution is tantamount to political malpractice.

[Pink Jazz]

Under the MUTCD interim approval process, FHWA technically did have the discretion to yank Clearview interim approval without any consultation.  But considering the amount of money states had invested in Clearview upgrades and the lack of a clear path back to pre-Clearview signing standards owing to the new requirement for mixed-case legend in the 2009 MUTCD, it would have been politic for FHWA to lay the groundwork for Clearview revocation by issuing a notice of intent to do so and taking public and agency comment on the most expeditious way of doing it.  Often a straight march to the apparent technocratic solution is tantamount to political malpractice.

I can see what you mean.  Some DOTs don't even have copies of Highway Gothic 2000 (the version with the mixed case alphabets other than Series E-Modified) since they were completely sold on Clearview.  The requirement for mixed case legend in the 2009 MUTCD exacerbated the problem of using narrower Clearview variants for this reason.

[seicer]

Was Series E even focus tested and scientifically vetted? It's 60+ years old. A lot of the issues that were brought up when Clearview was being implemented are still valid; it's no secret that it's not the ideal font choice for reasons that's long been discussed.

I vote on Transport 2012

--

Edit: Answered my own question.

[Pink Jazz]

Was Series E even focus tested and scientifically vetted? It's 60+ years old. A lot of the issues that were brought up when Clearview was being implemented are still valid; it's no secret that it's not the ideal font choice for reasons that's long been discussed.

I vote on Transport 2012

--

Edit: Answered my own question.

Are you referring to plain Series E, or Series E Modified?  Plain Series E wasn't available in an official mixed case alphabet until 2000.  As for Series E Modified, remember that the whole reason for the thicker strokes was to accommodate button copy, which is no longer being used for new signage.

Note that the MUTCD does not mandate the use of Series E Modified on freeway guide signage, which is why ADOT has decided to go with plain Series E to achieve the same benefits that Clearview originally promised.  If a DOT feels like it, they are free to use mixed case Series B on freeway guide signage, which would have course be a legibility disaster.

[jakeroot]

Bold emphasis added:

It's in both the House and Senate reports accompanying the FY 2017 appropriations bill for DOT. The House version reads:

Highway guide sign fonts.--In early 2016, FHWA notified state transportation agencies of its intention to rescind approval for the use of an alternate font on highway guide signs. The decision was made without adequate public consideration and input

Was similar consideration given (public consideration, input, etc.) given when the Clearview font first rolled out?

How could you have public input on something that doesn't exist in the field? Generally, public input is sought after something is rolled out (otherwise risking conjecture on the part of the commentators, not having actually seen the finished product IRL); if both the general public, and those responsible, approve of the change in question, then the change could be approved.

Yet another case of politicians inserting themselves where decisions should be made solely by engineers. I don't think it's something that needs public input- the studies showing the font was better were found to be flawed and the font is actually worse under certain conditions.

Despite my general preference for Clearview (when used everywhere, like this), I agree with this statement. The problem I see here is that, as has been brought up already, states did sink a lot of time, effort, and money, into implementing Clearview. Having the FHWA suddenly yank the interim approval, out of the blue and with little time to switch "back" to Highway Gothic is, IMHO, total bullshit.

FWIW, the memo to Grays Harbor County, which was the initial "we plan on rescinding Clearview approval in the future" notice, was not sent to anyone except Grays Harbor. For all we know, us and Grays Harbor are the only ones who had any idea the FHWA was planning on switching back to Highway Gothic. The FHWA could have avoided this mess if they had sent that memo to not just Grays Harbor, but to every other Clearview-approved department, albeit with slightly different wording.

[Scott5114]

Who would even comment in a public comment period? You would mostly get the people posting in this thread and a few uninformed people who read about it in their local newspaper's "look at this government waste!" column. The vast majority of the public is probably going to have an opinion along the lines of "what is a font?"

[lordsutch]

The point of a public comment period is to ensure that the relevant stakeholders have the opportunity to weigh in on a proposed government action, even if most of the general public have no interest or expertise. Public comment is an essential step in any permanent rulemaking by a federal agency under the provisions of the Adminstrative Procedure Act of 1946.

I think the way that Congress (and the complaining states in question) sees it is that normally when FHWA grants an interim approval, it allows it to stand until the next revision of the MUTCD at which time the NRPM allows for public comment on whether the interim approval should be folded into the MUTCD. Particularly for an interim approval that was widely used (unlike a traffic control device that was only used in a limited number of locations in one city or state), they would argue that a simple memo shutting down the authority to use Clearview without any formal input from DOTs is insufficient.

From a more general standpoint, a few studies saying "Clearview doesn't seem to perform any better than Series E(M)" isn't really in and of itself a good reason to stop allowing people to use Clearview instead of E(M); to my mind, you'd need to demonstrate that Clearview is worse, which FHWA hasn't done (because it isn't). Especially when FHWA is letting people (I'm looking at you, Georgia) do stuff with the FHWA typefaces that has even less validation than the now-dismissed studies that suggested Clearview was better than E(M).

IMO what FHWA should do is organize a shoot-out of Clearview, FHWA series, Frutiger, Transport, DIN 1451, Caractères, and TERN, and allow any other typographers to submit a design as well, and let states and localities adopt whichever typefaces score in the top 2-3 positions overall, with the caveat that at least one of the selected typefaces must have a royalty-free license like FHWA series.

[J N Winkler]

From a more general standpoint, a few studies saying "Clearview doesn't seem to perform any better than Series E(M)" isn't really in and of itself a good reason to stop allowing people to use Clearview instead of E(M); to my mind, you'd need to demonstrate that Clearview is worse, which FHWA hasn't done (because it isn't). Especially when FHWA is letting people (I'm looking at you, Georgia) do stuff with the FHWA typefaces that has even less validation than the now-dismissed studies that suggested Clearview was better than E(M).

D Georgia is going away, and I have never seen any actual proof that that was approved experimentation.

In its Clearview FAQ and later in the Clearview revocation notice, FHWA did note that it had been found that the more condensed Clearview typefaces (whose use was permitted under the terms of the original interim approval memorandum) had shown legibility performance inferior to the FHWA series.  I don't know if this research was published, or if the basis of comparison was the post-2004 mixed-case series.

IMO what FHWA should do is organize a shoot-out of Clearview, FHWA series, Frutiger, Transport, DIN 1451, Caractères, and TERN, and allow any other typographers to submit a design as well, and let states and localities adopt whichever typefaces score in the top 2-3 positions overall, with the caveat that at least one of the selected typefaces must have a royalty-free license like FHWA series.

I don't support Canadian-style free choice of typefaces.  Canada is very unusual in permitting this, and also in having large provinces and territories with very few large cities that straddle borders where a floating commuter population has to deal with multiple different signing systems.

Instead, what I would advocate is greater conservatism in guide sign design, including a requirement that if a mixed-case typeface is used for any application, it must be Series E Modified.  I am not aware that the relative legibility of the new mixed-case FHWA series has ever been studied, although that of mixed-case Series E Modified and the original uppercase-only series has been, and nominal unit legibilities are available for them that can be used in design (but are not actually quoted in any reference that is used on a daily basis by traffic sign designers in the US).

In the rulemaking process for the 2003 MUTCD, I suggested that FHWA should require Series E Modified for mixed-case just to establish a legibility floor, and FHWA rejected this suggestion on the basis that agencies could be trusted to exercise appropriate engineering judgment.  I don't think that position is tenable given that I have had to go to a traffic manual from New Zealand (in my personal library) to look up the unit legibilities that are available.

[Pink Jazz]

^

I understand your concerns about the other mixed case FHWA alphabets, however, what you are proposing might be a bit problematic for smaller signs (such as street name signs) unless smaller font sizes are used. I would think a narrower FHWA font at a larger size would be more legible than Series E Modified at a smaller size.

[PHLBOS]

I've recently seen some recently-installed PennDOT D1 (LGS) signs featuring mix-cased Series C and D for control cities.  Such were perfectly fine & legible.  That said, I would stay away from using Series B; such is too narrow (IMHO) to be read at distances.

[Pink Jazz]

I've recently seen some recently-installed PennDOT D1 (LGS) signs featuring mix-cased Series C and D for control cities.  Such were perfectly fine & legible.  That said, I would stay away from using Series B; such is too narrow (IMHO) to be read at distances.

ADOT is restricting Series B to width-constrained street name signs, which otherwise will use Series C for typical installs.

[machias]

^

I understand your concerns about the other mixed case FHWA alphabets, however, what you are proposing might be a bit problematic for smaller signs (such as street name signs) unless smaller font sizes are used. I would think a narrower FHWA font at a larger size would be more legible than Series E Modified at a smaller size.

NYSDOT has been very uneven with their mixed case sign implementations on non-freeway roads.  Some regions are using E(m) for even small signs that contain only the name of a hamlet while other regions are using mixed case Series D.  The mixed case Series D seems more legible than E(m) in these instances, with the original Series D (like Georgia's Series D but with dots on the i and j) being more legible than the Series D seen in the latest MUTCD.

I remember Wisconsin using mixed case destinations on their two lane roads way back in the 90s but I don't remember which letter form, was it a well spaced Series E?  That was very legible as well.  Series E(m) is too heavy for these smaller applications.

[DaBigE]

Since we don't need the extra width for button copy, why can't we go [back?] to Series E, especially since we have upper and lowercase alphabets now? Surely someone at FHWA has thought of this, or are they too lazy/complacent with E(m)?

I remember Wisconsin using mixed case destinations on their two lane roads way back in the 90s but I don't remember which letter form, was it a well spaced Series E?  That was very legible as well.  Series E(m) is too heavy for these smaller applications.

I don't know exactly how far back it goes, but Wisconsin still spec's Series E for most non-freeway signs that don't have lateral space issues: WisDOT spec example

[Pink Jazz]

Since we don't need the extra width for button copy, why can't we go [back?] to Series E, especially since we have upper and lowercase alphabets now? Surely someone at FHWA has thought of this, or are they too lazy/complacent with E(m)?

This is exactly what ADOT is currently doing for its freeway guide signs, as well as Series D for guide signs on regular roads and Series C for street blades.  The MUTCD does not mandate a specific variant of FHWA font for guide signs, and it is open to any DOT to even use mixed case Series B on freeway guide signs, even though it would be a legibility disaster. 

[PHLBOS]

Since we don't need the extra width for button copy, why can't we go [back?] to Series E, especially since we have upper and lowercase alphabets now? Surely someone at FHWA has thought of this, or are they too lazy/complacent with E(m)?

IIRC, some of NJDOT's first post-button copy BGS installs along I-295 were just that... Series E [but spaced like Series E(M) (?)].   Example 

The thinner-stroked lettering appeared more crisp; especially with the shorter lower-case letters.

That's probably one reason right there that the Clearview font is more legible than Series E(M); the stroke-width of the letters is narrower.

[jakeroot]

some of NJDOT's first post-button copy BGS installs along I-295 were just that... Series E [but spaced like Series E(M) (?)].   Example 

I think that's referred to as Enhanced E(M).

[PurdueBill]

From a more general standpoint, a few studies saying "Clearview doesn't seem to perform any better than Series E(M)" isn't really in and of itself a good reason to stop allowing people to use Clearview instead of E(M); to my mind, you'd need to demonstrate that Clearview is worse, which FHWA hasn't done (because it isn't). Especially when FHWA is letting people (I'm looking at you, Georgia) do stuff with the FHWA typefaces that has even less validation than the now-dismissed studies that suggested Clearview was better than E(M).

Proving it's worse isn't necessary.  The goal is not to allow equal alternatives.  If Clearview isn't demonstrably better, then its interim approval should go.  You don't have to show that it's worse to get rid of it; you just need to show that it isn't an improvement. 

That and the butcher job that many states did implementing Clearview make it clear that it just won't be done right.  Ohio still has it appearing on signs, possibly ones that were designed before the discontinuation of the interim approval but maybe not, and the same problems keep showing up with all-caps, numerals, narrow variants in all-caps on signs that don't call for Clearview at all.  If people aren't going to use it RIGHT, then they shouldn't be allowed to use it at all.  What part of "mixed-case destination legend" has been so hard for agencies to understand??

[Alex]

Found from an AASHTO link (scroll down to page 71) in the North Carolina thread, looks like Clearview may be sticking around:

RESOLVED, AASHTO respectfully requests FHWA to reinstate the Interim Approval for the Use of Clearview Font on Positive Contrast Legends on Guide Signs (IA-5) and be it further,

RESOLVED, AASHTO requests FHWA to establish a task force to address the concerns cited in the Federal Register and provide a recommendation for each; and be it further

RESOLVED, AASHTO requests FHWA to fully examine any potential termination of an Interim Approval, in coordination with other interested stakeholders.

[seicer]

Finally.

[machias]

Found from an AASHTO link (scroll down to page 71) in the North Carolina thread, looks like Clearview may be sticking around:

RESOLVED, AASHTO respectfully requests FHWA to reinstate the Interim Approval for the Use of Clearview Font on Positive Contrast Legends on Guide Signs (IA-5) and be it further,

RESOLVED, AASHTO requests FHWA to establish a task force to address the concerns cited in the Federal Register and provide a recommendation for each; and be it further

RESOLVED, AASHTO requests FHWA to fully examine any potential termination of an Interim Approval, in coordination with other interested stakeholders.

It's part of the "but it's new!" mentality so prevalent in the United States these days. Who cares about mediocre quality? Standards? Who needs them. I'm not surprised. Money speaks. Loudly. Meeker and Associates must have made a political donation from all the cash they've grabbed from state DOTs.

[vdeane]

This request is ridiculous.  It's the FHWA's right to rescind the interim approval, which is only for testing, no so states can wholesale replace existing practices.  Nobody has a "right" to keep making Clearview signs any more than someone who's in a clinical trial for an experimental drug has a right to keep taking the drug after it's found to be less effective than a placebo.

[cl94]

Money talks. I guarantee that someone has a lobbyist in Washington. At least NYSTA won't be switching back regardless of the outcome.

[hbelkins]

This request is ridiculous.  It's the FHWA's right to rescind the interim approval, which is only for testing, no so states can wholesale replace existing practices.  Nobody has a "right" to keep making Clearview signs any more than someone who's in a clinical trial for an experimental drug has a right to keep taking the drug after it's found to be less effective than a placebo.

AASHTO is the state transportation agencies. Apparently enough of them have bought Clearview (which must be outrageously expensive) and don't want to be stuck with the expense. They have every right to lobby FHWA -- and everyone knows that I think states should be able to use any font they want and this is typical federal overreach.

[seicer]

It's only mediocre quality when states can't hire qualified people to operate software to design signs to correct specifications. How many know anything about kerning? Graphic design? Padding and margins? Type height? From the look of some of signs installed in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York and Michigan, basic skills to design signs was not even a consideration. It's a mess of font heights, awful kerning, stretched letters and inadequate margins. Granted some of these issues were prevalent before Clearview, you can't blame a font for the shortcomings of ill-educated workers.

[DaBigE]

It's only mediocre quality when states can't hire qualified people to operate software to design signs to correct specifications. How many know anything about kerning? Graphic design? Padding and margins? Type height? From the look of some of signs installed in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York and Michigan, basic skills to design signs was not even a consideration. It's a mess of font heights, awful kerning, stretched letters and inadequate margins. Granted some of these issues were prevalent before Clearview, you can't blame a font for the shortcomings of ill-educated workers.

It's not necessarily ill-educated workers...sometimes it's the tools they're given. For instance, before WisDOT switched to SignCAD, all of their signs were created in MicroStation, with words being formed as a series of letter cells and not interactive type. (That's why the slash on the lowercase 'd' and 'b' did not go the same way...someone mirrored the cell of the other letter and called it good.) Each letter was individually placed (in some of the older plan sets, you can see the reference locator dot for letters that do not have a straight line as part of the left side. Adjusting kerning in that instance is a huge PITA and time consuming. And sometimes, it's not the fault of the designer, but rather, laziness on the part of the sign fabricator.