The Clearview thread

[DJStephens]

The above is one reason why design/engineering firms are supposed to be required to conduct Quality Assurance checks on all of their design plans and specifications (aka construction documents) prior to such going to procurement for bidding.

Even if the standards are properly outlined in the construction documents; fabrication errors can still be made even after the submitted shop drawings are reviewed & approved.  The resident engineer on site is supposed to identify any irregularities of the signs panels/messages prior to such being erected.

The latter is where I most frequently see things go wrong. The plans are correct, but the fabricator screws up the installation. And, unfortunately, more often than not, signs don't take a high priority by the site engineer.

Last year, I had a project where both divided highway warning signs were wrong. One was installed upside-down, the other was backwards (European, if you will). In the second case, that missed QA by the sign shop, the installer, and the site engineer. Sadly, it took weeks for it to get corrected. Both were shown correctly on the project plans.

Have seen that more than once in New Mexico.  Simply a case of oversight.   There was a grade separation project near my residence, and the yellow and black hash directionals at each end of the median were installed backwards, at both ends.  Still that way, five plus years later.   

[jakeroot]

Dude, just read the thread.

Well, skim. I wouldn't read 1900 posts with a gun to my head.

[DaBigE]

Have seen that more than once in New Mexico.  Simply a case of oversight.   There was a grade separation project near my residence, and the yellow and black hash directionals at each end of the median were installed backwards, at both ends.  Still that way, five plus years later.

The next time you drive through a construction zone, look to see how many of the barricades' stripes point the correct way. That will kick someone's OCD into overdrive. 

[kphoger]

I wouldn't read 1900 posts with a gun to my head.

The best tactic in that scenario would be to read 469 posts, then elbow the gunman in the crotch.

[tolbs17]

Dude, just read the thread.

Well, skim. I wouldn't read 1900 posts with a gun to my head.

Takes up way too much time for me. I rather skim through pages where I get the information about Highway Gothic vs Clearview from.

[DRMan]

Car & Driver's take on Highway Gothic vs. Clearview: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a28903239/us-highway-sign-fonts/?src=socialflowFBCAD&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&utm_medium=social-media

(Originally linked to by the excellent uni-watch.com as a ticker item. Sports fans should take a look.)

[Scott5114]

Of course they got Meeker's opinion on it and glossed over the shady shit.

[Android]

Have not looked here lately but just read that C&D article and thought it ended far too soon.   It really wimped out on talking about any of the controversy and debate that we find in this thread. 

Me, I've said it before that I don't much care for Clearview... now, I do find that it works, but I'd rather have had an "extended view" version of Highway Gothic instead.   I guess I just don't like the aesthetic of it, and I'm surprised that I still care about this, because I think I suffer from some kind of depression now that makes it so I don't care about much of anything anymore! 

Okay,  after my parents passed away, and the estate was sold, I no longer had much reason to drive from central Wyoming to Colorado any more very often.   In the past I documented some of the kind of odd signs I would find along this route (I-25), including the shift to Clearview.    But now I only ever go down there to visit my dentist twice a year.   Well I recently had to do so three times in a couple of weeks due to needing some extra teeth maintenance.    So I got to see the signs along the way a few times... and started to notice something.   

Um, so did WYDOT nix Clearview prior to the all this interim approval waffling?   I'm seeing signs from 2017 (WYDOT usually puts a date code at the bottom left corner of all signs) that are not Clearview.   



I think the newest sign I see along this stretch with CV is from 2014... (wait, I thought I had seen some from newer than that, but it's hard to remember to look at those little numbers every single time you pass a sign)  So, did they buy a fixed length Clearview license and when it expired, they just went back to Good Ol' HG? 



Edit:  Looking at my images above, I really, REALLY, am chuffed by that 70 Gore sign, and feel "meh" by that 80. 

[PHLBOS]

I'm seeing signs from 2017 (WYDOT usually puts a date code at the bottom left corner of all signs) that are not Clearview.   



I think the newest sign I see along this stretch with CV is from 2014... (wait, I thought I had seen some from newer than that, but it's hard to remember to look at those little numbers every single time you pass a sign)  So, did they buy a fixed length Clearview license and when it expired, they just went back to Good Ol' HG? 



Edit:  Looking at my images above, I really, REALLY, am chuffed by that 70 Gore sign, and feel "meh" by that 80. 

It's worth noting that the above-80 EXIT sign shouldn't be in Clearview at all per the IA.

[Android]

It's worth noting that the above-80 EXIT sign shouldn't be in Clearview at all per the IA.

Hold on, really?  I thought the IA allowed all instances of white-on-dark-background for Clearview.  I mainly used the examples of the somewhat unique Wyoming gore signs because those are the easiest to take decent photos of, as they are closest to the road.   

[Roadsguy]

It's worth noting that the above-80 EXIT sign shouldn't be in Clearview at all per the IA.

Hold on, really?  I thought the IA allowed all instances of white-on-dark-background for Clearview.  I mainly used the examples of the somewhat unique Wyoming gore signs because those are the easiest to take decent photos of, as they are closest to the road.   

I'm not sure if there were any exceptions, but generally Clearview isn't allowed for all-caps text and numbers.

[DaBigE]

Q: Since Clearview is so much more legible than the old highway lettering, and it was based on using upper— and lower-case letters, should I now display all lettering on signs using upper- and lower-case letters as I've seen illustrated in some documents?
A: Mixed-case legends are restricted to place names and destinations; all other messages such as action and distance messages, cardinal directions, and auxiliary designations shall remain composed of all upper-case letters employing the the MUTCD criteria. Legends composed of all upper-case letters did not demonstrate a like improvement over the Standard Alphabets when displayed using Clearview. Accordingly, words composed of all upper-case letters continue to use the Standard Alphabets.

Q: Does this mean all letters, numerals, and characters of Clearview are significantly more legible?
A: Numerals and special characters have not been tested for legibility and concerns have been reported thereon in field applications. Therefore, numerals continue to be displayed on highway signs using the Standard Alphabets.

[J N Winkler]

I say that agencies that use Clearview for all-uppercase legend are technically compliant in terms of the original 2004 IA memo.  The "Clearview FAQ" came out years after the fact, has unclear regulatory status, and has requirements as to line spacing that few (if any) agencies follow.  I'm not dinging Clearview guide signs just because all-uppercase legend is in Clearview--the thing to avoid is using Clearview digits in shields or any Clearview in negative contrast.

[hbelkins]

Maybe the developers of the font should have removed numerals from the font before they sold it.

[PHLBOS]

I say that agencies that use Clearview for all-uppercase legend are technically compliant in terms of the original 2004 IA memo.

If this is the memo you're referring to; while it doesn't mention such outright (in retrospect, a big mistake IMHO), it's mentioned more than once that the comparisons between the two fonts involve mixed-case lettering.  Nothing in the memo appears to be stated regarding all-caps and/or numerals.

The "Clearview FAQ" came out years after the fact, has unclear regulatory status, and has requirements as to line spacing that few (if any) agencies follow.  I'm not dinging Clearview guide signs just because all-uppercase legend is in Clearview--the thing to avoid is using Clearview digits in shields or any Clearview in negative contrast.

If what you're stating is your opinion, fine.  However, the IA/FAQ clearly IMHO narrows down the scope/application for the Clearview font.  The reasoning for the narrow scope/application, as mentioned multiple times in this thread, was due to the readability issues associated with the Series E-Modified font only.  To my knowledge, there weren't any known readability issues associated with all-caps and/or numeral applications.

Maybe the developers of the font should have removed numerals from the font before they sold it.

Agree 100%. 

[J N Winkler]

If this is the memo you're referring to; while it doesn't mention such outright (in retrospect, a big mistake IMHO), it's mentioned more than once that the comparisons between the two fonts involve mixed-case lettering.  Nothing in the memo appears to be stated regarding all-caps and/or numerals.

That is correct.  I am only arguing that use of Clearview for all-uppercase legend in positive contrast is technically compliant with the document that is known to be regulatory.  Whether it represents sound engineering practice is a separate issue.

The "Clearview FAQ" came out years after the fact, has unclear regulatory status, and has requirements as to line spacing that few (if any) agencies follow.  I'm not dinging Clearview guide signs just because all-uppercase legend is in Clearview--the thing to avoid is using Clearview digits in shields or any Clearview in negative contrast.

If what you're stating is your opinion, fine.  However, the IA/FAQ clearly IMHO narrows down the scope/application for the Clearview font.

The FAQ does contain language to that effect.  What is not clear is whether agencies have to follow its prescriptions.  Many did not and still do not.

[PHLBOS]

The FAQ does contain language to that effect.  What is not clear is whether agencies have to follow its prescriptions.  Many did not and still do not.

FWIW, the IA/FAQ uses the term Not Acceptable for examples of Clearview font applications that fall outside the scope of the IA.  One would think that such a term = don't do such.

Another thing the FAQ IMHO completely overlooks, and this has been mentioned several times before in this thread, is the accepted letter heights.  If the purpose of using the Clearview font for control city lettering vs. Series E-Modified is for readability reasons without resorting towards using larger letter heights; agencies taking it on themselves to use larger letters in Clearview, while compliant to the IA/FAQ, has resulted in unnecessarily gargantuan/more costly sign panels & larger gantries to support them (if overhead-mounted).

[DaBigE]

Another thing the FAQ IMHO completely overlooks, and this has been mentioned several times before in this thread, is the accepted letter heights.  If the purpose of using the Clearview font for control city lettering vs. Series E-Modified is for readability reasons without resorting towards using larger letter heights; agencies taking it on themselves to use larger letters in Clearview, while compliant to the IA/FAQ, has resulted in unnecessarily gargantuan/more costly sign panels & larger gantries to support them (if overhead-mounted).

I would disagree. The MUTCD already covers the letter heights explicitly in the manual: Section 2D.06 (03); Table 2E-2, 2E-3, 2E-4, 2E-5. The way I interpreted the IA was that Clearview was meant to be an alternative font, not a license to alter letter heights and word spacing. If lateral space became an issue, then the R-series of Clearview could be employed. Font choice should have no impact on sign height/depth.

[vdeane]

agencies taking it on themselves to use larger letters in Clearview, while compliant to the IA/FAQ, has resulted in unnecessarily gargantuan/more costly sign panels & larger gantries to support them (if overhead-mounted).

Not to mention extremely ugly signs.

[J N Winkler]

I would disagree. The MUTCD already covers the letter heights explicitly in the manual: Section 2D.06 (03); Table 2E-2, 2E-3, 2E-4, 2E-5. The way I interpreted the IA was that Clearview was meant to be an alternative font, not a license to alter letter heights and word spacing. If lateral space became an issue, then the R-series of Clearview could be employed. Font choice should have no impact on sign height/depth.

I think PHLBOS is talking about design creep.  Georgia went through this with D Georgia; they transitioned from 16" UC Series E Modified to 20" UC D Georgia (was supposed to improve legibility at low added cost in sign panel area since the mixed-case Series D letters were thinner), and then gave up and are now using 20" UC Series E Modified with really large sign panels.

Arizona, which did use Clearview, revamped guide signs at system interchanges (e.g., the I-10/I-17 stack in Phoenix) to use 20" UC Clearview 4-W (not 5-W or 5-W-R) instead of 16" UC Series E Modified.

[PHLBOS]

Another thing the FAQ IMHO completely overlooks, and this has been mentioned several times before in this thread, is the accepted letter heights.  If the purpose of using the Clearview font for control city lettering vs. Series E-Modified is for readability reasons without resorting towards using larger letter heights; agencies taking it on themselves to use larger letters in Clearview, while compliant to the IA/FAQ, has resulted in unnecessarily gargantuan/more costly sign panels & larger gantries to support them (if overhead-mounted).

I would disagree. The MUTCD already covers the letter heights explicitly in the manual: Section 2D.06 (03); Table 2E-2, 2E-3, 2E-4, 2E-5. The way I interpreted the IA was that Clearview was meant to be an alternative font, not a license to alter letter heights and word spacing. If lateral space became an issue, then the R-series of Clearview could be employed. Font choice should have no impact on sign height/depth.

This is one case where 1 picture = 1000 words; okay two in this case for comparison purposes.

Using Norristown on the below two-examples for comparison, both of which are IA-compliant (letter heights for the distance listings & exit tab info for both examples are of the same size):

Example of using larger/oversized lettering for control cities

Example of using appropriate-sized lettering for control cities
_________________________________________________________

Here's a more blatant example in Delaware compared to its predecessor signs

Even though DelDOT has since stopped using Clearview, they are still using larger text for its control city/street name listings.  Here's its predecessor sign.

[Scott5114]

The distinction here is that the IA is a binding document, while the FAQ is not. It provides guidance toward what FHWA wants to happen, but it doesn't have the full force of either the IA or the MUTCD.

[kphoger]

The distinction here is that the IA is a binding document, while the FAQ is not. It provides guidance toward what FHWA wants to happen, but it doesn't have the full force of either the IA or the MUTCD.

Thank you for spelling that out so concisely.  I think people were talking past each other.

[stevashe]

Dude, just read the thread.

Well, skim. I wouldn't read 1900 posts with a gun to my head.

Oops, I might have just done that very thing. (Not in one sitting though, I'm not that crazy!)

As for my thoughts on the font, I really do not like how it looks in pictures and mock-ups at all, but I must say it's not nearly as noticeable in the field from what I've seen (mostly in Michigan). In general though, I think a font with varying stroke width such as Clearview has no business being on a traffic sign which is meant to look official; I agree with others that the font looks way too "friendly". However, I actually agree with Jakeroot that BC's signs look quite good, which I think is partly because it's a different country so I'm more forgiving to differences.

As for whether it should be allowed in the US? I'm totally with the FHWA on this one. There was ample justification for disallowing Clearview in both their original notice rescinding the Interim Approval, as well as their report to Congress last year. Specifically, there are a few points made in the report that I think should immediately disqualify Clearview from use.

Firstly, in section 2.3, it is noted that during the development of Clearview, letters of the same size as the FHWA Standard Alphabets "failed to compete with the legibility and recognition of the Standard Alphabets" and that "ultimately, the developers could not achieve comparable legibility to the Standard Alphabets until the size of the letters was increased 12 percent larger than the corresponding Standard Alphabet letters." The legibility of Clearview is therefore worse than the FHWA Standard Alphabets.

Secondly, the report lists all the research related to Clearview in a table (3.1), and every single study was either flawed in some way, or concluded that Clearview had worse or comparable legibility to the Standard Alphabets. With no research supporting the superiority of Clearview to the already standard font, and some even showing it to be inferior, it would be at best ignorant, and at worst, irresponsible, not to rescind its approval as further approval of something known to potentially be inferior could open the FHWA up to potential liability. (Although I admit with relatively small differences in legibility it is doubtful the use of typeface could really be attributed to any decrease in function, this is America so I'm sure someone would try.)

Lastly, there is the whole issue of Clearview effectively being proprietary. While the glyphs themselves are public domain and could thus be legally recreated and sold by other companies, as noted by others in this thread, the FHWA report also referenced a comment received from a traffic engineering consultant who said they had tried to purchase Clearview from a third-party vendor but that "the vendor was served with a cease-and-desist notification from the 'owners' of Clearview stating that the company could not sell the font." This shows that the Clearview developers fully intend to protect their monopoly and are chiefly interested in making money, regardless of whether or not the glyphs are public domain. (And this strategy certainly has the potential to work regardless of whether the other companies are breaching the Clearview copyright, see: YouTube copyright claims.)

--

On another note, the report also interestingly says that TxDOT had never actually asked for approval to use Clearview, which may explain why they just kept right on using it even after the Interim Approval had been rescinded. The report does also mention that TxDOT was intending to finally ask for approval at the time it was written, although this page states that their request has been denied, so I guess the FHWA gets the last laugh on this one! 

I fully expect TxDOT to keep on using Clearview as long as they please though, "Don't mess with Texas" and all that.

[vdeane]

However, I actually agree with Jakeroot that BC's signs look quite good, which I think is partly because it's a different country so I'm more forgiving to differences.

I still don't like the look of BC's Clearview signs (or Nova Scotia's, for that matter), though that is an interesting point.  I don't mind Québec's, which tend to look more foreign compared to other places in Canada because of how they handle exit numbers.  That and the fact that they don't use Clearview numerals (which I've grown to dislike more and more over the years).  BC's signs look a lot like US signs but with APL-style arrows (which I'm not exactly fond of either, though I prefer them to diagrammatics).