The Clearview thread

[hbelkins]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that any agency that spent the money for Clearview is going to revert back to it to get a return on their investment.

It's why KYTC continues to use SharePoint for its website authoring -- they spent the big bucks for it and want to get as much use out of it as they can, rather than using some other web authoring tool like Dreamweaver (which is the software that was abandoned in favor of SharePoint) or GoLive.

[Rothman]

Heh.  An advisory consultant firm suggested using SharePoint as a means of document sharing and control for a large project at NYSDOT.  It was abandoned within a month for being just too cumbersome.

[vdeane]

I have not been to Virginia in 20 years, so the bulk of my information about VDOT Clearview usage comes from construction plans sets.  From that standpoint alone, I wish VDOT would give up Clearview altogether because it has been very hit and miss about ensuring that sign drawings are plotted with the actual Clearview fonts rather than generic sans-serif placeholder fonts.  Both it and Ohio DOT are among the worst of the Clearview-using agencies in this regard.  Back when VDOT was using FHWA series exclusively, sign drawings were nearly always plotted with the correct fonts.

Maybe they're trying to save money on licencing and only certain computers/employees have it?  Could also explain why Clearview signs often look so bad, if other agencies are doing the same thing and using placeholder fonts.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that any agency that spent the money for Clearview is going to revert back to it to get a return on their investment.

It's why KYTC continues to use SharePoint for its website authoring -- they spent the big bucks for it and want to get as much use out of it as they can, rather than using some other web authoring tool like Dreamweaver (which is the software that was abandoned in favor of SharePoint) or GoLive.

I believe NYSTA switched back for reasons unrelated to the IA being pulled, so they hopefully won't go back.

Heh.  An advisory consultant firm suggested using SharePoint as a means of document sharing and control for a large project at NYSDOT.  It was abandoned within a month for being just too cumbersome.

Would this have perhaps been a reason for the daily clippings suddenly switching to SharePoint?

[J N Winkler]

As regards Pennsylvania, I don't think PennDOT has its heart set on Clearview anymore now that Art Breneman (longtime traffic engineering coordinator and a big Clearview booster) has retired.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that any agency that spent the money for Clearview is going to revert back to it to get a return on their investment.

I think those agencies are going to end up forming a minority among those that used Clearview, just because the FHWA series are already in the MUTCD and are thus less vulnerable to a mandated phaseout at some point in the future.  Exploiting sunk cost is one thing; throwing good money after bad is another.

Maybe they're trying to save money on licensing and only certain computers/employees have it?  Could also explain why Clearview signs often look so bad, if other agencies are doing the same thing and using placeholder fonts.

I don't know.  That might be the case for some agencies, but I think it could also be a constellation of software integration issues, including failure to use the correct signcad.rsc file with SignCAD.  Ohio DOT District 6 (Columbus), for example, recently did very extensive sign replacements through a series of design-builds, for which the design-builders used SignCAD, and on the plan sheets themselves the signs were plotted using a variety of placeholder fonts, including a generic Helvetica-like font (same problem as VDOT) or mixed-case Series D with gaptooth kerning (very occasionally seen with TxDOT and Arizona DOT, probably a result of signcad.rsc mismatch).  However, the deliverables for these projects included sets of sign shop drawings, all produced directly in SignCAD and not ported to a separate CAD application, and these had no font substitutions whatsoever.

[PHLBOS]

Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf

My feelings exactly; back to contractors manufacturing whatever they want, and VDOT just checking it off instead of telling them to fix it.  Case in point: https://goo.gl/maps/819cszajyGn - This sign was installed around 2016 following the extension of Gloucester Pkwy to the VA-28 / Nokes Blvd interchange.  I believe I saw Clearview first pop up in Virginia around 2008 (I-66 east signage for the US-29 / VA-28 south exit), and there are still errors popping up ten years later.  Well, that and inconsistencies with the font size on destination legends.  Ever since questions have crept up over Clearview's ease of legibility over FHWA, it seems the response was to jack up the character size.  I wouldn't be so against it if VDOT actually enforced the standards they laid out in the first place.

Given your listed examples, one has to wonder if designers and/or fabricators will take the over-spaced numerals in that US 250 shield example in VDOT's guide too literally and do such for all 3-digit route signs.

For those that doubt me on such; there were a couple of either AL or GA 255 shields on BGS' (posted in another thread) that have the same over-spacing.

[Brandon]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that any agency that spent the money for Clearview is going to revert back to it to get a return on their investment.

I'm not so sure.  All new ISTHA signage has been FHWA, and they were a big user of Clearview, even before it showed up on IDOT signage.

[machias]

I believe NYSTA switched back for reasons unrelated to the IA being pulled, so they hopefully won't go back.

Yes, the NYSTA did switch back before the IA was pulled because of motorist feedback they were receiving. I know NYSDOT never planned on intentionally switching to Clearview (CorCraft signs notwithstanding); maybe NYSDOT put some pressure on NYSTA to knock it off or something.

[Rothman]

Heh.  An advisory consultant firm suggested using SharePoint as a means of document sharing and control for a large project at NYSDOT.  It was abandoned within a month for being just too cumbersome.

Would this have perhaps been a reason for the daily clippings suddenly switching to SharePoint?

Heh.  I don't know.  I doubt it; the experience I spoke of was very project specific.

[seicer]

We use SharePoint at work but even with the Modern UI and the cloud-based services that we are subscribed to as part of our A3 plan, it can be a barrier to most. I spent a good part of two calls to our England office to explain how to sync up their document library to the desktop via OneDrive for Business (which really should just be OneDrive) and migrate 300 GB of files from their dying file server to SharePoint. Once the sync happens, it's very easy to move files from the file server to OneDrive - using just the standard Windows File Explorer.

One of the tools we use the most here in our organization is Teams, which is built upon SharePoint - but you'd never know it looking at the interface.

SharePoint has been simplified quite a lot over the past year and the roadmap from Microsoft shows further simplification for cloud-based clients. The old model allowed for granular permission levels and a high amount of customization, but it was oriented towards the 10% of users who may actually "want" those features. For the vast majority - they just need an intranet site to store documents, add versioning and retention control, and create internal pages.

Going back to the topic from Rothman and Vdeane, I wish that public agencies would stop using SharePoint for public-facing websites unless they actually deploy them properly. (I'm looking at you, KYTC.) Many of these instances have been so butchered and customized that they are not ADA accessible, which opens the agency up to lawsuits that are very much valid - and something the agency will lose. Many of these sites are also very old and run on on-premise SharePoint 2013 or 2010, which opens them up to security risks.

(Disclosure: I am a SharePoint/Teams consultant and actually did consulting work for KYTC on this very issue.)

[hbelkins]

We use SharePoint at work but even with the Modern UI and the cloud-based services that we are subscribed to as part of our A3 plan, it can be a barrier to most. I spent a good part of two calls to our England office to explain how to sync up their document library to the desktop via OneDrive for Business (which really should just be OneDrive) and migrate 300 GB of files from their dying file server to SharePoint. Once the sync happens, it's very easy to move files from the file server to OneDrive - using just the standard Windows File Explorer.

One of the tools we use the most here in our organization is Teams, which is built upon SharePoint - but you'd never know it looking at the interface.

SharePoint has been simplified quite a lot over the past year and the roadmap from Microsoft shows further simplification for cloud-based clients. The old model allowed for granular permission levels and a high amount of customization, but it was oriented towards the 10% of users who may actually "want" those features. For the vast majority - they just need an intranet site to store documents, add versioning and retention control, and create internal pages.

Going back to the topic from Rothman and Vdeane, I wish that public agencies would stop using SharePoint for public-facing websites unless they actually deploy them properly. (I'm looking at you, KYTC.) Many of these instances have been so butchered and customized that they are not ADA accessible, which opens the agency up to lawsuits that are very much valid - and something the agency will lose. Many of these sites are also very old and run on on-premise SharePoint 2013 or 2010, which opens them up to security risks.

(Disclosure: I am a SharePoint/Teams consultant and actually did consulting work for KYTC on this very issue.)

KYTC recently upgraded to a new(er) version of SharePoint, and the new look of the site has been optimized for mobile users. And I can vouch for the fact that ADA compliance is being emphasized in the new rollout. Now if some of us page maintainers can remember to type in alternate text for images. It's the one thing I never remember to do.

[Rothman]

We use SharePoint at work but even with the Modern UI and the cloud-based services that we are subscribed to as part of our A3 plan, it can be a barrier to most. I spent a good part of two calls to our England office to explain how to sync up their document library to the desktop via OneDrive for Business (which really should just be OneDrive) and migrate 300 GB of files from their dying file server to SharePoint. Once the sync happens, it's very easy to move files from the file server to OneDrive - using just the standard Windows File Explorer.

One of the tools we use the most here in our organization is Teams, which is built upon SharePoint - but you'd never know it looking at the interface.

SharePoint has been simplified quite a lot over the past year and the roadmap from Microsoft shows further simplification for cloud-based clients. The old model allowed for granular permission levels and a high amount of customization, but it was oriented towards the 10% of users who may actually "want" those features. For the vast majority - they just need an intranet site to store documents, add versioning and retention control, and create internal pages.

Going back to the topic from Rothman and Vdeane, I wish that public agencies would stop using SharePoint for public-facing websites unless they actually deploy them properly. (I'm looking at you, KYTC.) Many of these instances have been so butchered and customized that they are not ADA accessible, which opens the agency up to lawsuits that are very much valid - and something the agency will lose. Many of these sites are also very old and run on on-premise SharePoint 2013 or 2010, which opens them up to security risks.

(Disclosure: I am a SharePoint/Teams consultant and actually did consulting work for KYTC on this very issue.)

In my experience, NYSDOT has been very sensitive to ADA issues with public-facing websites.  Haven't heard of any legal troubles stemming from that aspect.

[vdeane]

In my experience, NYSDOT has been very sensitive to ADA issues with public-facing websites.  Haven't heard of any legal troubles stemming from that aspect.

Private, too.  They specifically made sure to have everyone put in alt tags for images put on IntraDOT pages.

[hbelkins]

I was in a training class yesterday and one of the presenters was from the KYTC Division of Traffic Operations. I took the opportunity to ask if Kentucky's going to go back to Clearview now that the IA has been reinstated. The answer was yes, but only for mixed-case destinations on panel signs.

[PHLBOS]

I took the opportunity to ask if Kentucky's going to go back to Clearview now that the IA has been reinstated. The answer was yes, but only for mixed-case destinations on panel signs.

Which essentially is all the IA allows (on dark backgrounds).

Personally, I would go one step further and require that the control city text heights in Clearview not be upsized when used/selected.  If the purpose of the new/alternate font is to make the text more readable for the same height; why upsize it?

Such has created unnecessarily large sign-boards and more than one state is guilty of such.

A comparison example of what I'm referring to.  Note: the exit-tab heights & legends (in Highway Gothic) below the control cities are the same heights. Signs listing Norristown in both examples is intentional for comparison:

Proper use of the Clearview font but oversized text

Proper use and size of the Clearview font

[Pink Jazz]

ADOT still has not re-adopted Clearview.  New APL signage has gone up on US 60 WB in Tempe, and it is still in FHWA.

[vdeane]

I took the opportunity to ask if Kentucky's going to go back to Clearview now that the IA has been reinstated. The answer was yes, but only for mixed-case destinations on panel signs.

Which essentially is all the IA allows (on dark backgrounds).

Personally, I would go one step further and require that the control city text heights in Clearview not be upsized when used/selected.  If the purpose of the new/alternate font is to make the text more readable for the same height; why upsize it?

Such has created unnecessarily large sign-boards and more than one state is guilty of such.

A comparison example of what I'm referring to.  Note: the exit-tab heights & legends (in Highway Gothic) below the control cities are the same heights. Signs listing Norristown in both examples is intentional for comparison:

Proper use of the Clearview font but oversized text

Proper use and size of the Clearview font

Looking at those signs, I think that upsizing might be the main determinant in whether I think a Clearview sign looks decent or ugly.

[Scott5114]

Malproportionately large text looks bad no matter what font it's in.

[Eth]

Malproportionately large text looks bad no matter what font it's in.

I guess I've just gotten used to it, because that's the actual standard in Georgia now. This, for instance, is a perfectly compliant installation:

[PHLBOS]

Malproportionately large text looks bad no matter what font it's in.

True but based on what I've seen (mostly in DE but I've seen examples in PA as well) is that the conversion to Clearview on many signs included usage of larger text for the control cities in the process.

[jakeroot]

Malproportionately large text looks bad no matter what font it's in.

True but based on what I've seen (mostly in DE but I've seen examples in PA as well) is that the conversion to Clearview on many signs included usage of larger text for the control cities in the process.

Accidentally, as far as I know. The UC and LC letters should have been the same height as the FHWA Series, but agencies seemed to mess this up. I'm sure there's a reason, but it's not Clearview's fault AFAIK.

[PHLBOS]

Malproportionately large text looks bad no matter what font it's in.

True but based on what I've seen (mostly in DE but I've seen examples in PA as well) is that the conversion to Clearview on many signs included usage of larger text for the control cities in the process.

Accidentally, as far as I know. The UC and LC letters should have been the same height as the FHWA Series, but agencies seemed to mess this up. I'm sure there's a reason, but it's not Clearview's fault AFAIK.

The larger text height in this sign upgrade in Delaware was no accident.

New signs as of Sept. 2017

Previous signs from one year earlier

Similar sign changes along I-495 & I-95 in yielded this result more often than not.

[jakeroot]

^^
Just because it happens often, does not make it intentional. More than likely, a misunderstanding on the part of the agency, or the software they are using to design the signs is not producing the correct results (but no one notices until after the signs go up).

[vdeane]

Accidentally, as far as I know. The UC and LC letters should have been the same height as the FHWA Series, but agencies seemed to mess this up. I'm sure there's a reason, but it's not Clearview's fault AFAIK.

For some reason, Clearview makes the effect more obvious and more ugly.  If I had my way, that would be points against it.  In an era where signage mistakes are easier than ever to make, we should not be magnifying the effects of such mistakes.

[PHLBOS]

Just because it happens often, does not make it intentional. More than likely, a misunderstanding on the part of the agency, or the software they are using to design the signs is not producing the correct results (but no one notices until after the signs go up).

If prior/previous sign specs (in FHWA Series E(M)) call for 16-inch lettering; why wouldn't the Clearview equivalent (5-W(?)) be 16-inches as well?

The lettering from the earlier GSV examples I posted looks to be either 18 or 20 inches high.

[jakeroot]

Accidentally, as far as I know. The UC and LC letters should have been the same height as the FHWA Series, but agencies seemed to mess this up. I'm sure there's a reason, but it's not Clearview's fault AFAIK.

For some reason, Clearview makes the effect more obvious and more ugly.  If I had my way, that would be points against it.  In an era where signage mistakes are easier than ever to make, we should not be magnifying the effects of such mistakes.

I don't like oversized text, period. I think both look like crap. Then again, I don't hate Clearview like some, so I'm more lenient.

BC seems to do it right (minus the small cardinal directions):

Just because it happens often, does not make it intentional. More than likely, a misunderstanding on the part of the agency, or the software they are using to design the signs is not producing the correct results (but no one notices until after the signs go up).

If prior/previous sign specs (in FHWA Series E(M)) call for 16-inch lettering; why wouldn't the Clearview equivalent (5-W(?)) be 16-inches as well?

The lettering from the earlier GSV examples I posted looks to be either 18 or 20 inches high.

You'd have to talk to someone like Mr Winkler. I don't understand sign making programs, but they are apparently very finicky.