The Clearview thread

[seicer]

Thanks for the clarification.

[cl94]

New York's issue was not only bad design, but whoever wrote the sign specs had the wrong types of reflective sheeting. The background of some of these signs was more reflective than the letters, which is not good.

Then there's the issue of Clearview shields, which is another problem altogether.

[machias]

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.

We went 50 years without having all these spacing and kerning and padding issues when engineers did everything by hand.  Clearview isn't going to fix sloppy practices on mediocre programs by interns who think designing a road sign is the same as creating a beer blast poster in MS Paint.  Further study during the interim approval showed that there was no significant advantage to using Clearview over Series E(m) and that the other Clearview letters did worse than their FHWA Series D, etc. counterparts. The FHWA and the states should be focused on consistency, applicable standards and using the newer Series E(em), which used the Series E lettering with Series E(m) spacing.

The push for Clearview was Meeker and Associates trying to make a buck. If they truly wanted to improve road sign legibility, they would have designed Clearview under a grant and then made the work public domain or open source and not charge a fee per workstation to use the lettering. 

[cl94]

The push for Clearview was Meeker and Associates trying to make a buck. If they truly wanted to improve road sign legibility, they would have designed Clearview under a grant and then made the work public domain or open source and not charge a fee per workstation to use the lettering.

This. Compare to a bunch of the major safety innovations. Work is generally either public-domain or patents are unenforced.

[vdeane]

The cost issue alone would have been enough for me to deny interim approval.  I'm amazed states spent the money on the thing.  It strikes me as a bunch of wasted money regardless of approval status (I can understand Quebec, because the FHWA fonts don't have accents, so those had to be done manually).

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

They've certainly been raising a stink in the press.  How many articles have their been slamming the FHWA for "government overreach" and "oppressing the makers and users of Clearview"?  And none on how the initial studies on Clearview were fraudulent in the first place!

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.

I don't know if ANY state uses graphic designers to make road signs.  In NYSDOT, it tends to be technicians without a college degree or licensed engineers (in other words, whoever they could get to do the work).  In any case, signs with issues DO tend to look uglier with Clearview than they would with FHWA; basically, Clearview is less forgiving of mistakes than the FHWA fonts are.

[PurdueBill]

They've certainly been raising a stink in the press.  How many articles have their been slamming the FHWA for "government overreach" and "oppressing the makers and users of Clearview"?  And none on how the initial studies on Clearview were fraudulent in the first place!

This!!  If it wasn't government overreach in the first place to allow Clearview on an INTERIM BASIS (always understood that the interim approval was not permanent and that continued testing would be required), then it's not government overreach to discontinue the allowance of it.  And the interim approval was for positive contrast destination legend ONLY, never for street sign blades, shield numerals, exit number numerals, distance numerals, any kind of numerals actually other than those in a destination proper name (e.g., 96th St), cardinal directions in ALL CAPS, action messages in ALL CAPS, all of which Clearview ran rampant with the tacit encouragement of the makers of Clearview by their photos on their web site. 

Ohio continues to post signs with HWY PATROL, HOSPITAL, EXIT, NEXT RIGHT, EXIT 1 MILE, EAST, SOUTH, etc. in all-caps Clearview with numerals in Clearview too--fortunately except shields usually.  Delaware used to have really good looking signage until they decided to copy Maryland's crazy Clearview with enormous destinations, tiny exit numbers, wide spaces in odd places--all enabled by Clearview and probably would never have happened without it.  There needs to be consistency across state lines and from road to road.  The madness must stop!

Had Meeker and Associates actively worked to make sure users use Clearview right, they'd have a leg to stand on.  Instead, they sold it and stand by it as a cure-all for a disease that it doesn't treat and in fact makes worse (negative contrast, for example).  The harder they push, the harder I hope FHWA pushes back.  It is doubtless political lobbying by Meeker and Associates that is in play because their cash cow isn't what it was cracked up to be.

[jakeroot]

How often are interim approvals closed without MUTCD implementation?

[cl94]

How often are interim approvals closed without MUTCD implementation?

MUTCD website only lists IAs since the 2003 MUTCD. All but two of the pre-2009 MUTCD ones were put into that edition or one of its revisions. Granted, most of those IAs were pretty trivial in relation to Clearview, such as new logos and the retroreflective borders. Rectangular rapid flashing beacons remains active (issued in 2008).

[J N Winkler]

And the interim approval was for positive contrast destination legend ONLY, never for street sign blades, shield numerals, exit number numerals, distance numerals, any kind of numerals actually other than those in a destination proper name (e.g., 96th St), cardinal directions in ALL CAPS, action messages in ALL CAPS, all of which Clearview ran rampant with the tacit encouragement of the makers of Clearview by their photos on their web site.

Actually, the 2004 interim approval memorandum allowed use of any of the Clearview W series (intended for positive-contrast usage) in any positive-contrast guide-sign application--I would argue this technically extended to digits in Interstate shields, though clearly such usage was far from desirable.  The additional restrictions outlined above (as well as the recommendation to use 5-W and 5-W-R only) didn't come into being until the Clearview FAQ several years later, which was non-regulatory.

[Scott5114]

FHWA fonts are less likely to be involved in a botched design because they're easier to work with. The original, squared-off BPR fonts were supposedly designed so that even an illiterate person could paint a sign by just following the pattern. The FHWA fonts we have today were adapted from the BPR fonts. As a result, they don't incorporate a lot of fancy tricks that professionally-used typefaces do. You can do a decent job of kerning just by setting the letters apart a fixed width (barring any character pairs that would obviously need kerning adjustments, like 'Av').

Clearview has a lot of finicky things that make it more difficult to design with. The biggest one of these that I've run into is that letters with ascenders like 'l' and 'd' reach higher than the capital letters do. Many commercial typefaces share this characteristic, which is fine, because designers tend to set type in a certain number of points and let the software calculate how that translates into physical size. (Think using MS Word–you don't set a line of type as 1" tall, you set it as 72 pt.) However, SHS and MUTCD standards call out specific heights in inches that text must be, and Clearview makes it more difficult to follow that since you have to make an allowance for the ascenders.

[J N Winkler]

Clearview has a lot of finicky things that make it more difficult to design with. The biggest one of these that I've run into is that letters with ascenders like 'l' and 'd' reach higher than the capital letters do. Many commercial typefaces share this characteristic, which is fine, because designers tend to set type in a certain number of points and let the software calculate how that translates into physical size. (Think using MS Word–you don't set a line of type as 1" tall, you set it as 72 pt.) However, SHS and MUTCD standards call out specific heights in inches that text must be, and Clearview makes it more difficult to follow that since you have to make an allowance for the ascenders.

If memory serves, Clearview lowercase letters basically divide into three groups according to ascender/dot height:  capital letter height exactly (t), slightly higher than capital letter height (l, d, h), and much higher than capital letter height (i).  The CorelDRAW script I used to position legend vertically basically assumed that each line of text was a geometric object in its own right and positioned one line in relation to the other such that the closest points were the required vertical padding distance apart.  With Series E Modified this worked fine as long as there was at least one capital letter per line and there were no descenders.  With Clearview I couldn't afford any letters with ascenders other than t.  However, this constraint did not apply if I composed legend blocks as multi-line paragraphs, since the correct spacing can easily be specified (regardless of ascender/descender height) simply by setting interline spacing at the appropriate multiplier of the line height that is specified in the font file.

In any case, I don't know if the ascender issue actually causes problems in commercial traffic sign design packages, as opposed to the consumer-grade vector graphics packages (like CorelDRAW, Illustrator, or Inkscape) that we have been using to prepare sign mockups.  In the thousands of sign panel detail sheets I collected while the Clearview interim approval was in effect, I hardly ever saw line alignment faults that clearly resulted from the presence or absence of ascenders.  By far the most common was to use too-small lowercase letters, apparently resulting from a misunderstanding of the traditional "X UC, (3/4)X LC" formulation (which is, or at any rate should be, precisely the same as just "X UC" when the typeface is mixed-case and the lowercase letters have loop height equal to 3/4 capital letter height, which has been baked into Series E Modified since the late 1950's and is now part of the other FHWA series).

The basic rule of thumb for space padding on freeway guide signs, which tells you 90% of what you need to know to create realistic mockups, is capital letter height horizontally, lowercase loop height vertically.  The most absurd part of the Clearview FAQ, which (thankfully) few if any agencies followed, was to extend this to Clearview and say interline spacing should be at the actual lowercase loop height of Clearview (84% capital letter height) rather than the traditional 75%.  Clearview was designed for interline spacing at 75% capital letter height ("Drop-in replacement for Series E Modified, so we don't have to increase sign panel size appreciably" was the key element in the design brief for it).

I have seen some Clearview plans sets (invariably drawn up in SignCAD) with kerning issues, but there I am not sure what is going on.  My understanding is that, like the current mixed-case versions of the FHWA series, Clearview is tilable, with few if any letter pairs requiring kerning adjustments.

[Pink Jazz]

Here is the FHWA's official response on the complaints about the termination of the interim approval for Clearview:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-13/html/2016-29819.htm

The FHWA is seeking information from state and local agencies that may have not been available to them when the termination of the interim approval was announced.

[myosh_tino]

Here is the FHWA's official response on the complaints about the termination of the interim approval for Clearview:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-13/html/2016-29819.htm

The FHWA is seeking information from state and local agencies that may have not been available to them when the termination of the interim approval was announced.

I'm just curious what "new" information are they going to get from the state and local agencies?  Is it going to be constructive or is it going to descend into a bitch-fest about how much money was sunk into converting to Clearview?

I, personally, am glad to see Clearview go bye-bye *however* if local agencies want to keep it around for use on small signs like street blades, I'm OK with that.

[Scott5114]

I'm just curious what "new" information are they going to get from the state and local agencies?  Is it going to be constructive or is it going to descend into a bitch-fest about how much money was sunk into converting to Clearview?

My guess is that the latter is exactly what FHWA is expecting. Then they can say "We held a comment period and no new technical data justifying the use of Clearview came to light, so our decision stands."

[JMoses24]

Ohio appears to be continuing new Clearview installs. New exit signage on I-75 between Harrison Avenue and Interstate 74 is in Clearview. Probably was ordered well in advance of the IA being revoked.

[marleythedog]

FHWA is making its way back to Ohio. About two weeks ago, I saw this on 4 south coming into Dayton. This was recently button copy. For whatever reason, they have replaced all signage on 75 and 4 to direct Children's Hospital traffic down Stanley Ave instead of the Troy St exit (the hospital is right next to the Troy St exit). The signs along 75 are also in FHWA but more normal (i.e., dedicated BBS saying "Dayton Children's Hospital EXIT 56" instead of slapping it atop the BGS).

I took a picture because at first I thought this was an example of Enhanced E Modified, but I later realized it's just E(M) with oddly wide spacing.

[Pink Jazz]

I'm just curious what "new" information are they going to get from the state and local agencies?  Is it going to be constructive or is it going to descend into a bitch-fest about how much money was sunk into converting to Clearview?

My guess is that the latter is exactly what FHWA is expecting. Then they can say "We held a comment period and no new technical data justifying the use of Clearview came to light, so our decision stands."

If that happens, I would not be surprised to see the issue end up in litigation.

[myosh_tino]

I'm just curious what "new" information are they going to get from the state and local agencies?  Is it going to be constructive or is it going to descend into a bitch-fest about how much money was sunk into converting to Clearview?

My guess is that the latter is exactly what FHWA is expecting. Then they can say "We held a comment period and no new technical data justifying the use of Clearview came to light, so our decision stands."

If that happens, I would not be surprised to see the issue end up in litigation.

And if *that* happens, I would not be surprised if the judge tossed the case.

What would the argument be?

[jakeroot]

What would the argument be?

Perhaps the FHWA hadn't performed enough research before revoking Clearview. Or, that the overwhelming data available for much of Clearview's life suggested that is was superior (and was worth investing in). Until very recently, there wasn't a lot of data that suggested that Clearview wouldn't have been implemented in the next MUTCD (besides studies showing Clearview superiority up until now, the vast majority (read: ~99%) of interim approvals are implemented into the manual). The FHWA very quickly did a 180 and pulled the plug after some studies suggested inferior readability in some circumstances (keeping in mind that the plug was pulled back in April 2014 when Gray's Harbor County, Washington was denied a Clearview IA). I suspect that some agencies feel cheated, regardless of the interim approval status.

Full disclosure: I like Clearview.

[DaBigE]

What would the argument be?

Perhaps the FHWA hadn't performed enough research before revoking Clearview. Or, that the overwhelming data available for much of Clearview's life suggested that is was superior (and was worth investing in). Until very recently, there wasn't a lot of data that suggested that Clearview wouldn't have been implemented in the next MUTCD (besides studies showing Clearview superiority up until now, the vast majority (read: ~99%) of interim approvals are implemented into the manual). The FHWA very quickly did a 180 and pulled the plug after some studies suggested inferior readability in some circumstances (keeping in mind that the plug was pulled back in April 2014 when Gray's Harbor County, Washington was denied a Clearview IA). I suspect that some agencies feel cheated, regardless of the interim approval status.

Full disclosure: I like Clearview.

And how about we reverse that argument: not enough research was performed before giving approvals to begin using Clearview. One could say the creation of Clearview was a waste of money without exhaustively testing other variations of the existing FHWA series of fonts, as many have suggested in this topic thread. Were other alternatives developed besides Clearview? How competitive of a process was the decision to go with Terminal Design, Inc for the font development?

[cl94]

What would the argument be?

Perhaps the FHWA hadn't performed enough research before revoking Clearview. Or, that the overwhelming data available for much of Clearview's life suggested that is was superior (and was worth investing in). Until very recently, there wasn't a lot of data that suggested that Clearview wouldn't have been implemented in the next MUTCD (besides studies showing Clearview superiority up until now, the vast majority (read: ~99%) of interim approvals are implemented into the manual). The FHWA very quickly did a 180 and pulled the plug after some studies suggested inferior readability in some circumstances (keeping in mind that the plug was pulled back in April 2014 when Gray's Harbor County, Washington was denied a Clearview IA). I suspect that some agencies feel cheated, regardless of the interim approval status.

Full disclosure: I like Clearview.

And how about we reverse that argument: not enough research was performed before giving approvals to begin using Clearview. One could say the creation of Clearview was a waste of money without exhaustively testing other variations of the existing FHWA series of fonts, as many have suggested in this topic thread. Were other alternatives developed besides Clearview? How competitive of a process was the decision to go with Terminal Design, Inc for the font development?

This. As we have seen from further studies, the initial studies in favor of Clearview were generally biased. Reflective Clearview results were compared to nonreflective FHWA. Not an equal comparison. If proper testing was performed, we would have known that Clearview performed WORSE than FHWA fonts under all conditions other than positive-contrast mixed-case before states started to purchase licenses and erect signs. Long story short, the data shows that, overall, Clearview is worse than the FHWA fonts when it comes to legibility if conditions are equal (which was not the case in the initial studies).

[1995hoo]

For what it's worth, in most court challenges to federal agency rulemaking actions, the standard of review is whether the agency acted in an "arbitrary and capricious manner." It's a very deferential standard of review that makes it hard to overturn an agency action. Of course there are exceptions to that principle, but I'd be surprised if the Clearview matter fell within any of the exceptions because it wasn't even really a formal rulemaking procedure. I'm not overly familiar with the whole administrative process used with the interim approvals versus any more formal FHWA action, but I've gotten the distinct impression the interim approval is something less than a full notice-and-comment action. I strongly expect any court would apply an extremely deferential standard of review as a result.

(Full disclosure: As I've said in prior threads, I like Clearview as well because I find it a lot easier to read from a distance, especially at night.)

[jakeroot]

Alright, let's just be hypothetical. Let's pretend it's 2009. What do we know about Clearview? We know its been approved, in the interim, for about five years now. Regardless of whether or not the studies are flawed (I believe this was something discovered only in the last few years), what do they say? Do they show Clearview to be superior, or not?

My point is not that Clearview is better. I believe it's comparable, if not, superior in some cases, inferior in others (likewise, the FHWA fonts are superior and inferior in their own ways). I feel as though states that were granted interim approval to use Clearview were misled as to the supposed benefits of Clearview (as long as the latest studies are to be believed), and they feel cheated after having dumped millions into the font.

I liken the dumping of Clearview to a hypothetical situation where the FHWA dumps the flashing yellow arrows (which could be done at any point without warning, apparently). Some states, like Oregon, have very few 5-section signals left. Basically the whole state is littered with FYAs. How would you feel if you were Oregon? Studies were showing all along the benefits of the FYA. Then, out of the blue, a study shows up that shows the FYA to be inferior to the 5-section signal, the FHWA pulls the plug, and you're left with a bunch of non-compliant signals. At the very least, you want your day in court. Even if it proves to be futile, you want to defend your investment.

And how about we reverse that argument: not enough research was performed before giving approvals to begin using Clearview. One could say the creation of Clearview was a waste of money without exhaustively testing other variations of the existing FHWA series of fonts, as many have suggested in this topic thread.

You're convicting the defendant, you know? Even more of a reason to go to court. The FHWA allowed Clearview to explode into this nation-wide phenomenon, even though it was half-baked from the get-go (apparently). At the very least, states may seek refunds for time and money invested into Clearview.

[Scott5114]

Agencies trying to fight to have Clearview back would have a much stronger leg to stand on if it had been added to the 2009 MUTCD and then backed out in a subsequent issue.

As it stands, Clearview was added through a interim approval. In order to participate in the Clearview IA, the requesting agency had to agree to abide by §1A.10 of the 2003 MUTCD (most likely there is an equivalent section of the 2009 MUTCD, but the majority of the IAs were issued under the 2003 MUTCD). The relevant clause states:

F. An agreement to restore the site(s) of the interim approval to a condition that complies with the provisions
in this Manual within 3 months following the issuance of a final rule on this traffic control device.  This
agreement must also provide that the agency sponsoring the interim approval will terminate use of the
device or application installed under the interim approval at any time that it determines significant safety
concerns are directly or indirectly attributable to the device or application.  The FHWA's Office of
Transportation Operations has the right to terminate the interim approval at any time if there is an
indication of safety concerns.

Every IA participation request had to include an explicit agreement to comply with this segment. (For example, Oklahoma's IA request states "We further agree to comply with Item F at the bottom of Page 1A-6 of the 2003 MUTCD...") Every road agency who purchased a Clearview license knew what they were getting into.

[machias]

My point is not that Clearview is better. I believe it's comparable, if not, superior in some cases, inferior in others (likewise, the FHWA fonts are superior and inferior in their own ways). I feel as though states that were granted interim approval to use Clearview were misled as to the supposed benefits of Clearview (as long as the latest studies are to be believed), and they feel cheated after having dumped millions into the font.

And how about we reverse that argument: not enough research was performed before giving approvals to begin using Clearview. One could say the creation of Clearview was a waste of money without exhaustively testing other variations of the existing FHWA series of fonts, as many have suggested in this topic thread.

You're convicting the defendant, you know? Even more of a reason to go to court. The FHWA allowed Clearview to explode into this nation-wide phenomenon, even though it was half-baked from the get-go (apparently). At the very least, states may seek refunds for time and money invested into Clearview.

The states should be going after Meeker and Associates for their propaganda surrounding the use of Clearview and their unreasonably high licensing fees. If they were really trying to make the roads safer by designing a new typeface, they should have designed, sought retribution for the design from the FHWA and then released it to the masses for free. They were trying to make a buck and they're now butt-hurt that the Federal Government saw through their ruse.  The states that went all crazy with something that had only an Interim Approval should be going after Meeker and Associates, not trying to get mediocrity passed off as a standard.