The Clearview thread

[J N Winkler]

The difference is officially sanctioned favoritism.  With regards to contracts, those go through a bidding process, where every firm that does business in that area has an opportunity to bid and potentially win the contract.  With respect to things like software licences, at least then the government is choosing among a marketplace which one to use.  With respect to Clearview, having it allowed at all is basically government-backed favoritism.  DOTs would be using either FHWA, or paying Meeker.  Nobody else.  That is why fonts, devices, etc. that are backed by privately owned intellectual property should not be allowed in the MUTCD.  If the federal government is going to allow states to pay Meeker for Clearview, then the only way to resolve the favoritism issue is to stop regulating fonts entirely.

This is an important point.  There are multiple providers for the FHWA alphabet series (URW, SignCAD,  . . .) but only one for Clearview.  It is my understanding that Meeker had to waive copyright on the Clearview glyphs (though not the fonts, which are separately copyrightable as software) in order for FHWA to issue the Clearview IA.  This being the case, why has no-one stepped in to produce an on-spec set of Clearview fonts to provide some competition?  If the answer is that Meeker would sue with a good likelihood of prevailing in court, then the implication is that FHWA's enforcement of the use of nonproprietary devices is toothless, which is unconscionable.

[Scott5114]

The difference is officially sanctioned favoritism.  With regards to contracts, those go through a bidding process, where every firm that does business in that area has an opportunity to bid and potentially win the contract.  With respect to things like software licences, at least then the government is choosing among a marketplace which one to use.  With respect to Clearview, having it allowed at all is basically government-backed favoritism.  DOTs would be using either FHWA, or paying Meeker.  Nobody else.  That is why fonts, devices, etc. that are backed by privately owned intellectual property should not be allowed in the MUTCD.  If the federal government is going to allow states to pay Meeker for Clearview, then the only way to resolve the favoritism issue is to stop regulating fonts entirely.

This is an important point.  There are multiple providers for the FHWA alphabet series (URW, SignCAD,  . . .) but only one for Clearview.  It is my understanding that Meeker had to waive copyright on the Clearview glyphs (though not the fonts, which are separately copyrightable as software) in order for FHWA to issue the Clearview IA.  This being the case, why has no-one stepped in to produce an on-spec set of Clearview fonts to provide some competition?  If the answer is that Meeker would sue with a good likelihood of prevailing in court, then the implication is that FHWA's enforcement of the use of nonproprietary devices is toothless, which is unconscionable.

Point of clarity: Meeker & Associates did not waive copyright on the glyphs, but rather glyphs have been ruled to be public domain by default (if I remember correctly, because the court does not recognize the work in drawing, say, a "G" to be transformative enough to warrant copyright–it is still a G, after all). This is why there are dozens upon dozens of versions of slightly-different versions of Helvetica, for instance.

Maybe slightly off-topic, but still..
Does anyone else feels that federal mandate for font on signs goes a little too far in terms of regulation?

No. In addition to the reasons others have stated, it remains that the regulations on typeface are directed primarily at other executive-branch government agencies, which owe their entire existence and reason for being to the execution of various laws and regulations. Using a particular font is no burden to them. Putting additional regulations on government agencies is part and parcel of the American form of government–the First Amendment applies to the government but not the private sector, for instance.

If the federal government was attempting to regulate the font on private-sector businesses' advertising signs, it would be an entirely different kettle of fish.

[J N Winkler]

Point of clarity: Meeker & Associates did not waive copyright on the glyphs, but rather glyphs have been ruled to be public domain by default (if I remember correctly, because the court does not recognize the work in drawing, say, a "G" to be transformative enough to warrant copyright–it is still a G, after all). This is why there are dozens upon dozens of versions of slightly-different versions of Helvetica, for instance.

Thanks for the clarification.  I went back and looked at the Clearview IA since I distinctly remembered that there was an eleventh-hour attempt to stop the Clearview train using the fact it was a proprietary device.  (It is possible I learned of it through FHWA authority-to-experiment correspondence that was then posted on the ATSSA website, not necessarily through the Clearview IA documentation.)  The Clearview IA memo does state that Meeker waived trademark protection for "Clearview" as a descriptor for a particular font or typeface, but to me that looks more like granting permission to say "Hoover" instead of "vacuum cleaner."

As an aside, the Clearview IA is still listed as "terminated" even though the appropriations bill that resurrected it presumably took effect immediately.

[Revive 755]

As an aside, the Clearview IA is still listed as "terminated" even though the appropriations bill that resurrected it presumably took effect immediately.

Probably some internal FHWA debate with their legal department on how to proceed and word the memo.

[vdeane]

No. In addition to the reasons others have stated, it remains that the regulations on typeface are directed primarily at other executive-branch government agencies, which owe their entire existence and reason for being to the execution of various laws and regulations. Using a particular font is no burden to them. Putting additional regulations on government agencies is part and parcel of the American form of government–the First Amendment applies to the government but not the private sector, for instance.

If the federal government was attempting to regulate the font on private-sector businesses' advertising signs, it would be an entirely different kettle of fish.

Indeed.  Government can get very particular with respect to fonts.  NYSDOT's official signature policy specifies the formatting and content of every line of the signature down to font, point size, color (down to the RGB values!), etc.  It's too the point where one can tell how good someone is with Microsoft Outlook based on how many formatting errors their signature has.  Oddly enough, the policy is vague on whether there's supposed to be a line between job title and address (the text implies no but the example says yes).

[Rothman]

I believe the RGB color values for the text do not match the actual text color in the example, either.

It's just ugly.

[hbelkins]

Maybe slightly off-topic, but still..
Does anyone else feels that federal mandate for font on signs goes a little too far in terms of regulation?

Yes. My position on this is well-known. This should be something the individual states decide. If West Virginia uses the FHWA font on its signs, but Kentucky wants to use Helvetica or Franklin Gothic, my position is that Kentucky should be able to.

I'm all for uniform colors and symbols on signs across the 50 states, but see no reason that the feds should dictate font. If you see a sign saying it's 20 miles to Ashland, you're going to know what it means no matter what font it's in or what side of the Big Sandy River it's on.

[jakeroot]

I'm all for uniform colors and symbols on signs across the 50 states, but see no reason that the feds should dictate font. If you see a sign saying it's 20 miles to Ashland, you're going to know what it means no matter what font it's in or what side of the Big Sandy River it's on.

I'm 80% with you. I don't think any typeface should be allowed. I think that would open the door for some states to drop in some Comic Sans near an amusement park, for example. But the difference between Clearview and Highway Gothic is almost negligible. It isn't, as studies have shown, but it's close enough that I really do believe the FHWA should permit either font, leaving the choice to the states.

With that said, I don't like how Clearview is setup right now, requiring a licence and all. The typeface is also kind of messy; the narrow glyphs need work IMO.

[Scott5114]

And, lo, again I say unto you: that whatsoever power you shall grant upon your state DOT, you shall likewise grant that power unto Oklahoma DOT...

[jakeroot]

And, lo, again I say unto you: that whatsoever power you shall grant upon your state DOT, you shall likewise grant that power unto Oklahoma DOT...

If I'm not mistaken, OkDOT is an example of an agency that somehow screws up Highway Gothic? The near-impossible-to-botch typeface?

[Scott5114]

And there are people that want to give them access to Helvetica and Franklin Gothic.

[vdeane]

Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.

[MNHighwayMan]

Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.

I'm down for Impact or Papyrus.

[Big John]

Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.

Some symbolic signs are also webdings characters.

[DaBigE]

Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.

I'm down for Impact or Papyrus.

How long until the state of Georgia petitions to use Georgia? 
(Personally I would be against any serif'd font on a highway sign as it adds extra noise to the letter where it's not needed)

[J N Winkler]

Georgia could try signs in Mkhedruli, as in the other Georgia.  The 1977 (I think) edition of the Russian GOST standard for traffic signs has an alphabet for it that is all ready for use.

[Eth]

Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.

I'm down for Impact or Papyrus.

How long until the state of Georgia petitions to use Georgia? 
(Personally I would be against any serif'd font on a highway sign as it adds extra noise to the letter where it's not needed)

I mean, we are talking about the state that thumbed its nose at everyone and decided to use Series D for 20 years, so I wouldn't really put it past them.

(And if you've seen our route markers, going full Oklahoma is really not out of the realm of possibility.)

[Brandon]

And, lo, again I say unto you: that whatsoever power you shall grant upon your state DOT, you shall likewise grant that power unto Oklahoma DOT...

If I'm not mistaken, OkDOT is an example of an agency that somehow screws up Highway Gothic? The near-impossible-to-botch typeface?

Well, CraIG CoUnty is an ODOT sign using demountable FHWA letter from two different parts bins.

[jakeroot]

And, lo, again I say unto you: that whatsoever power you shall grant upon your state DOT, you shall likewise grant that power unto Oklahoma DOT...

If I'm not mistaken, OkDOT is an example of an agency that somehow screws up Highway Gothic? The near-impossible-to-botch typeface?

Well, CraIG CoUnty is an ODOT sign using demountable FHWA letter from two different parts bins.

It still boggles my mind they never bothered to replace that sign.

Georgia could try signs in Mkhedruli, as in the other Georgia.  The 1977 (I think) edition of the Russian GOST standard for traffic signs has an alphabet for it that is all ready for use.

Interesting to see you participate in some off-topic sarcasm.

[machias]

I think the FHWA should focus on making sure the layout of the sign is correct and set minimum standards for legibility. Having just driven I-75 through Georgia, I find the old D Georgia signs easier to read than Clearview and actually easier to read at night than Series E(m). GDOT should have been allowed to continue with D Georgia.

[Scott5114]

Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.

I'm down for Impact or Papyrus.

How long until the state of Georgia petitions to use Georgia? 
(Personally I would be against any serif'd font on a highway sign as it adds extra noise to the letter where it's not needed)

I mean, we are talking about the state that thumbed its nose at everyone and decided to use Series D for 20 years, so I wouldn't really put it past them.

(And if you've seen our route markers, going full Oklahoma is really not out of the realm of possibility.)

Oklahoma's hot new trend for their spring lineup is putting Series B in places it doesn't belong, so you're already most of the way there.

TODO: get a picture of that lovely new gore sign that went up, entirely in Series B, complete with upside down letter X.

Well, CraIG CoUnty is an ODOT sign using demountable FHWA letter from two different parts bins.

It gives that appearance, but I'm not entirely sure. Demountable copy is fairly rare in Oklahoma aside from button copy. Although it being direct-applied copy would raise some alarming new questions.

Dammit, am I going to have to drive to Big Cabin to find out?

[Brandon]

Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.

I'm down for Impact or Papyrus.

How long until the state of Georgia petitions to use Georgia? 
(Personally I would be against any serif'd font on a highway sign as it adds extra noise to the letter where it's not needed)

I mean, we are talking about the state that thumbed its nose at everyone and decided to use Series D for 20 years, so I wouldn't really put it past them.

(And if you've seen our route markers, going full Oklahoma is really not out of the realm of possibility.)

Oklahoma's hot new trend for their spring lineup is putting Series B in places it doesn't belong, so you're already most of the way there.

TODO: get a picture of that lovely new gore sign that went up, entirely in Series B, complete with upside down letter X.

Well, CraIG CoUnty is an ODOT sign using demountable FHWA letter from two different parts bins.

It gives that appearance, but I'm not entirely sure. Demountable copy is fairly rare in Oklahoma aside from button copy. Although it being direct-applied copy would raise some alarming new questions.

Dammit, am I going to have to drive to Big Cabin to find out?

I have a close up of the sign here on Facebook (my photo): https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10211249682734652&set=ms.c.eJxVUcsNA1AI2qh5KIruv1jjpaFXgsgHL4Dg9vQrKuuDHxKZbIYhQLLhSENUjiEz4Dw6J0UxHeFSbEMUoNqvQsku~%3BxV1fuR~_3rIB18mk2jliUXqGrJITzslettxPDtha1ylR8hS8NsZ1~_MAeTzH3fb3VOZ31xrhJPdeZBrX~_HbcFnFO3FzwXrrG~%3BXHXrwD1HLJveWMVS6C8DrGkM.bps.a.10211249680774603.1073741840.1136647920&type=3&theater

On second look it's sticker-type decals from two different bins.

[GenExpwy]

I've just been lurking around a typography board (one where some big names in typography chat), and found two Clearview threads:

http://typedrawers.com/discussion/1349/bad-news-for-clearview  [2016 thread on revoking the IA, with recent updates]

http://typedrawers.com/discussion/2639/good-news-for-clearview  [new thread on restoring the IA]

James Montalbano, who evidently designed Clearview for Meeker, says this is the reason why the IA was reinstated:

All 50 state AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) representatives as well as the AASHTO Executive board petitioned unanimously for Clearview's reinstatement. There was some new reseach done at MIT that demonstrated Clearview's superiority. There were other issues at play as well.

In the 2016 thread he said:

The problem isn't the licensing model, the problem is the new administrators of the FHWA value uniformity over innovation. Our latest research that was presented last month shows considerable performance by Clearview over the Highway Gothic design.

To point to the license fees for font software as the reason for its demise is bullshit.

(To which Ray Larabie replied:

My Expressway and Blue Highway font sales were down so I had to do something. It cost me a fortune to bribe all those politicians but I think it'll pay off in the long term.

So basically this James Montalbano has convinced our leading typographers that Clearview is unambiguously superior to FHWA fonts and that every engineer wants to switch to it, and it's only politicians and political appointees that are blocking it.

[MNHighwayMan]

So basically this James Montalbano has convinced our leading typographers that Clearview is unambiguously superior to FHWA fonts and that every engineer wants to switch to it, and it's only politicians and political appointees that are blocking it.

What a load of bullshit. If that were the case, then why didn't all fifty states apply for approval to use it? What a joke.

[DaBigE]

So basically this James Montalbano has convinced our leading typographers that Clearview is unambiguously superior to FHWA fonts and that every engineer wants to switch to it, and it's only politicians and political appointees that are blocking it.

What a load of bullshit. If that were the case, then why didn't all fifty states apply for approval to use it? What a joke.

It's highly unlikely you'll ever get 100% participation from every state. Some are leaders, some are followers, some are penny-pinchers, and some will be taken kicking & screaming into any decisions.

Frankly, I think the whole project should be scrapped and started over from scratch. But since private money (and the potential for profit), and now politicians are involved, that will never happen. Instead of reaching a truly scientific decision, we'll end up with the "best" the courts can decide.

The idea of a clearer font has merit, but Clearview isn't the silver bullet, at least in its current form. Similarly, the FHWA fonts could be modified to fix its flaws. Series E Modified is proof that the fonts aren't static and written in stone.