The Clearview thread

[odditude]

What is the reasoning for the MUTCD forbidding the use of diacritics over/under letters? There certainly can't be any legitimate excuse from the perspective of design and fabrication.

i don't recall the source, but it's due to legibility at highway speeds. a letter with a diacritic can be easily misinterpreted at a glance as another letter, especially since diacritics are very rarely seen in English.

[Scott5114]

The reason for this, of course, is because FHWA Series is a public-domain typeface that has existed since the 1950s as a series of mathematically-plotted definitions in the MUTCD/SHS books. FHWA didn't develop any diacritics because the MUTCD requires leaving them off, so what would be point in specifying them?

What is the reasoning for the MUTCD forbidding the use of diacritics over/under letters? There certainly can't be any legitimate excuse from the perspective of design and fabrication.

The relevant section is §2A.13¶4:

Word messages should not contain periods, apostrophes, question marks, ampersands, or other punctuation or characters that are not letters, numerals, or hyphens unless necessary to avoid confusion.

So I suppose it's up for interpretation as to whether diacritics are "punctuation" or whether they are "necessary to avoid confusion". No Support statement is given for this paragraph, but I'd imagine that the punctuation specified is to be omitted to avoid cluttering the alphanumeric characters with glyphs that are not necessary to comprehend the message. Thus, "St Louis" instead of "St. Louis", "Tysons Corner" instead of "Tyson's Corner", and "Pena Blvd" instead of "Peña Blvd.".

Regarding fonts in the public domain, there is quite a few open source typefaces that blow away Series Gothic in terms of language support and other typographical features. Quite a few type designers release some of their typefaces for nothing in a bid to make them popular and get attention from commercial foundries who might sell some of their other typefaces. It is certainly possible for private companies, such as Google for instance, to take on a type development project for traffic signs and make the results open source.

Again, though, the potential customer base for a FHWA Series typeface would primarily be traffic sign designers–anyone else would be using Interstate–and those designers will likely not be using many diacritics due to the above-quoted MUTCD passage, so where's the business case for paying a typographer to design it?

I think it's more likely that you see whatever foundry sells Interstate draw up condensed versions of it roughly equivalent to the different sub-E series than you would to see Google blow money on giving away FHWA Series improvements for free.

Why not be the change you want to see in the world, load up Roadgeek 2014, and design diacritics for it? If you know how to use a vector graphics program like Illustrator (which, being in the commercial sign industry, I'd imagine you would be) it would be dead simple to learn a font editor.

[hbelkins]

The relevant section is §2A.13¶4:

Word messages should not contain periods, apostrophes, question marks, ampersands, or other punctuation or characters that are not letters, numerals, or hyphens unless necessary to avoid confusion.

LOL. Look at this sign that shows where the word "and" was removed in favor of an ampersand.



I took this picture back in September only because of the evidence of sine rot, and didn't notice where the lettering had been changed until the picture started showing up in my laptop's screen saver (which is my iPhoto library).

[Scott5114]

Double whammy, that's got an apostrophe too.

Then again, that's a "should" statement, not a "shall", which means it's not absolutely forbidden, but why would someone would go out of their way to change that sign?

[Eth]

I have the "Georgia D" font - it's basically Page Studio Graphics "Highway Gothic D" (the older Mac BMAP version, not the current TrueType/OpenType version) without dots on the i and j.  I really think more attention needs to be put into studying readability of that lettering. The glyphs are close enough to Series E/EEM/E(m) that the letter forms looks familiar but different enough to allow for larger lettering on reasonably sized panels.

Don't forget the square D. I've never really understood why that's a thing.

[machias]

I have the "Georgia D" font - it's basically Page Studio Graphics "Highway Gothic D" (the older Mac BMAP version, not the current TrueType/OpenType version) without dots on the i and j.  I really think more attention needs to be put into studying readability of that lettering. The glyphs are close enough to Series E/EEM/E(m) that the letter forms looks familiar but different enough to allow for larger lettering on reasonably sized panels.

Don't forget the square D. I've never really understood why that's a thing.

The square D was weird. I don't remember seeing it everywhere, but when I saw it it did strike me as odd. The typeface from Page Studio Graphics doesn't have that odd D.

[Buffaboy]

NYSTA has a new batch of signs in Buffalo that are FHWA. They look quite sharp.

I was wondering what the new FHWA Thruway signs would look like.  Are they made to the modern standards, just without the clearview, or did they go back to older standards or something completely different?  Maybe I'll have to swing by on the way to the Toronto meet.

This one, put up by God knows who, is quite the oddity in the US, though.

eww

[cl94]

NYSTA has a new batch of signs in Buffalo that are FHWA. They look quite sharp.

I was wondering what the new FHWA Thruway signs would look like.  Are they made to the modern standards, just without the clearview, or did they go back to older standards or something completely different?  Maybe I'll have to swing by on the way to the Toronto meet.

This one, put up by God knows who, is quite the oddity in the US, though.

eww

It is the standard in much of Canada, hence why vdeane theorized (and I completely agree) that it is likely a PBA install. I like it, just not standard (and odd placement because it is over what I think is the new connection from surface streets to the bridge).

[Buffaboy]

NYSTA has a new batch of signs in Buffalo that are FHWA. They look quite sharp.

I was wondering what the new FHWA Thruway signs would look like.  Are they made to the modern standards, just without the clearview, or did they go back to older standards or something completely different?  Maybe I'll have to swing by on the way to the Toronto meet.

This one, put up by God knows who, is quite the oddity in the US, though.

eww

It is the standard in much of Canada, hence why vdeane theorized (and I completely agree) that it is likely a PBA install. I like it, just not standard (and odd placement because it is over what I think is the new connection from surface streets to the bridge).

I guess you're right. It's not as bad as this.

[Bobby5280]

Again, though, the potential customer base for a FHWA Series typeface would primarily be traffic sign designers–anyone else would be using Interstate–and those designers will likely not be using many diacritics due to the above-quoted MUTCD passage, so where's the business case for paying a typographer to design it?

Legibility needs in graphic design extend far beyond the mere scope of traffic sign design. Lots of type families have been developed to read well as small point sizes in print. There is a growing number of typefaces that have been geared for electronic displays (computer screens, phone screens, etc.). Road geeks act like Series Gothic is the most legible typeface ever created even though there is very likely other typefaces that would beat it in legibility tests.

Why not be the change you want to see in the world, load up Roadgeek 2014, and design diacritics for it? If you know how to use a vector graphics program like Illustrator (which, being in the commercial sign industry, I'd imagine you would be) it would be dead simple to learn a font editor.

Diacritics are only one of the things missing. It needs native small caps, a full set of numerators for auto-generating fractions and probably a good number of alternate characters.

Designing a typeface, or rather an entire type family, correctly requires a hell of a lot of work. I don't see much of a point in applying that kind of work to an existing font design if the end result will never be used. It's not difficult to learn the basics of using font editors like FontLab Studio. The font building process can still be very time consuming.

[PurdueBill]

Clearview developers sound very hurt by the news. 

"Helen Keller can tell you from the grave that Clearview looks better,"  Meeker says.

"This is a burr in somebody's saddle,"  says Meeker, who adds that he's preparing a rebuttal to the news. "They don't understand design."

It's not a burr in somebody's saddle or someone not understanding design, Mr. Meeker.  It's that further research beyond 2004 showed that Clearview wasn't an improvement and was in fact a detriment in many applications, and FHWA doesn't amend standards allow equal alternatives, only to make improvements.  Clearview turns out to not have been an improvement and thus it goes.

The sign examples credited to Meeker and Associates shown in the article (PA 412 exit off I-78) illustrate misuses of Clearview as well--shield numerals, exit tab, exit distance line.  Apparently it's OK with him to use it where-ever you like, research results be darned.

Amusingly, there is a link to another thread right here on AARoads where the article refers to the site in an odd way.  "Font forum posters report seeing Clearview in Orange County....."  I never knew that this was a "font forum".  I know there's a lot about Clearview and other fonts discussed in certain threads, but still, I never thought this was a "font forum".

[Quillz]

Clearview may look better, but it doesn't work better. Seems the developer himself fails to understand that, for better or worse, legibility comes before aesthetics.

[Zeffy]

Meeker sounds like a whiny little bitch because the FHWA is going to cost him a lot of money. But how much money did his company already make by selling the full sets of Clearview for $795?

[seicer]

That's not a lot of money for a font.

[cl94]

Looks don't mean crap if it doesn't work better. Take I.M. Pei's architectural designs. Might look cool to architects, but not functional. I lived in an I.M. Pei-designed dorm my freshman year. Thing was tiny, dark, a rat maze, and had no circulation because windows were located in poor locations and doors were staggered. Also not compliant with current fire codes due to the dead-end hallways or ADA requirements because you can't fit a wheelchair in the halls, but that's beside the point.

[Thing 342]

I would like to register a few complaints about this article. It seems to miss the point that Clearview's interim approval was only ever meant to be used for experimental purposes, instead going for an 'anachronistic government incompetence' angle. They leave out most of the later research showing that Clearview had little to no benefit over Highway Gothic, only to be said by a FHWA person, who've they'd already established as the 'bad guy' in the piece. Furthermore, they also try to establish the idea that Clearview somehow became the FHWA's favored font in 2004 when again, it was only meant to be used experimentally. The comments from Meeker make little sense, as he should have known that the rug could pulled out from under them at any time. The experiment failed, so he can quit his crying now.

[Quillz]

Meeker sounds like a whiny little bitch because the FHWA is going to cost him a lot of money. But how much money did his company already make by selling the full sets of Clearview for $795?

I bought it...

[jeffandnicole]

I would like to register a few complaints about this article. It seems to miss the point that Clearview's interim approval was only ever meant to be used for experimental purposes, instead going for an 'anachronistic government incompetence' angle. They leave out most of the later research showing that Clearview had little to no benefit over Highway Gothic, only to be said by a FHWA person, who've they'd already established as the 'bad guy' in the piece. Furthermore, they also try to establish the idea that Clearview somehow became the FHWA's favored font in 2004 when again, it was only meant to be used experimentally. The comments from Meeker make little sense, as he should have known that the rug could pulled out from under them at any time. The experiment failed, so he can quit his crying now.

It's not uncommon for people to complain about something, even though they knew it was experimental.  Of course, he was hoping it would be the main font used, which would help dramatically increase the revenue.  If I thought I had something that would bring in a lot of money and I was told it's going to be banned, I would complain too!

[Bobby5280]

Judging one typeface against another is in the end a mostly SUBJECTIVE exercise. It mostly comes down to visual preference. That has certainly been the case in the Series Gothic versus Clearview debate. Not only is the visual preference thing a factor, but sentimentality and nostalgia play into it too. For every shortcoming that is present in the Series Gothic type family there is someone there to defend it.

I even have to question to whether those subjective preferences came into play to bias re-testing between Clearview and Series Gothic.

$750 is a pretty steep price for a single Clearview license (which includes both the W and B series weights). For that kind of price the fonts should have been full featured OpenType "pro" typefaces rather than TrueType with a slightly extended character set. It is common for professional quality, commercial type families to cost beyond $1000 or even $2000 per license.

The very limited character set and arguably crudely drawn glyphs of Series Gothic hardly justify it being worthy of rising above freebie font status. Yet I have seen type vendors charge money for those fonts. They're not freely available at Font Squirrel, dafont or any other free font web site.

Series Gothic is worthless for other kinds of graphic design uses due to all its limitations. Interstate works better, but it sure ain't free if you want to use it legally. It costs $900 for the complete family of 36 fonts. Being an early 1990's design, Interstate has no extended OpenType style features, just 245 glyphs per font, including Western European diacritics, Euro and a handful of ligatures. You can get a lot more for $900 in a lot of other modern type families.

[cl94]

Judging one typeface against another is in the end a mostly SUBJECTIVE exercise. It mostly comes down to visual preference. That has certainly been the case in the Series Gothic versus Clearview debate. Not only is the visual preference thing a factor, but sentimentality and nostalgia play into it too. For every shortcoming that is present in the Series Gothic type family there is someone there to defend it.

I even have to question to whether those subjective preferences came into play to bias re-testing between Clearview and Series Gothic.

$750 is a pretty steep price for a single Clearview license (which includes both the W and B series weights). For that kind of price the fonts should have been full featured OpenType "pro" typefaces rather than TrueType with a slightly extended character set. It is common for professional quality, commercial type families to cost beyond $1000 or even $2000 per license.

The very limited character set and arguably crudely drawn glyphs of Series Gothic hardly justify it being worthy of rising above freebie font status. Yet I have seen type vendors charge money for those fonts. They're not freely available at Font Squirrel, dafont or any other free font web site.

Series Gothic is worthless for other kinds of graphic design uses due to all its limitations. Interstate works better, but it sure ain't free if you want to use it legally. It costs $900 for the complete family of 36 fonts. Being an early 1990's design, Interstate has no extended OpenType style features, just 245 glyphs per font, including Western European diacritics, Euro and a handful of ligatures. You can get a lot more for $900 in a lot of other modern type families.

The FHWA fonts don't need a large variety. They're only intended for signage. That's the point. It only needs to contain the characters suitable for signage. What's your obsession with this?

[J N Winkler]

Clearview developers sound very hurt by the news. 

"Helen Keller can tell you from the grave that Clearview looks better,"  Meeker says.

"This is a burr in somebody's saddle,"  says Meeker, who adds that he's preparing a rebuttal to the news. "They don't understand design."

This is part of what seems to me a rather short-notice and clumsily organized fightback, which was published in the Atlantic Monthly online edition as well.

It's not a burr in somebody's saddle or someone not understanding design, Mr. Meeker.  It's that further research beyond 2004 showed that Clearview wasn't an improvement and was in fact a detriment in many applications, and FHWA doesn't amend standards allow equal alternatives, only to make improvements.  Clearview turns out to not have been an improvement and thus it goes.

The sign examples credited to Meeker and Associates shown in the article (PA 412 exit off I-78) illustrate misuses of Clearview as well--shield numerals, exit tab, exit distance line.  Apparently it's OK with him to use it where-ever you like, research results be darned.

Actually, within the terms of the original IA, the only part of the Hellertown/Bethlehem Clearview example that is not kosher is "412" within the keystone shield.  The IA did not require that Clearview be used in mixed-case only or that it never be used in shields.  Technically it allowed Clearview digits in shields as long as they appeared in positive contrast (never true for the US shield, but always true for the Interstate shield, and true for some state route shields).  It also allowed the condensed Clearview typefaces.

When the IA was issued, it was already known (preliminarily) that the Clearview B typefaces offered inferior legibility.  The problems with the Clearview digits, condensed Clearview typefaces, and all-uppercase Clearview surfaced much later, and FHWA's attempt to discourage the use of these took the form of non-regulatory guidance.

There is another factor to keep in mind:  interline spacing.  One of the fundamental rules of thumb in US guide sign design is that spacing between adjacent lines of mixed-case legend is equal to three-quarters the capital letter height, which is also the lowercase loop height for the FHWA series.  The final version of Clearview was designed to be used with three-quarters capital letter height between lines (which in Clearview's case is a bit less than lowercase loop height), which meant an experimentally measured 10% legibility increase out of the same sign panel area when 5-W-R is used.  In the non-regulatory Clearview FAQ that came out when FHWA tried to stamp on the implementation problems with Clearview, FHWA urged practitioners to set interline spacing for Clearview legend equal to the lowercase loop height of Clearview, and as the difference between the two is pretty close to 10% (84% for Clearview versus 75% for the FHWA series), this guideline translates to an approximate 10% increase in reading distance out of approximately 10% added sign panel area, i.e. no advantage for Clearview.  This is an example of rigging things in favor of the FHWA series.

Amusingly, there is a link to another thread right here on AARoads where the article refers to the site in an odd way.  "Font forum posters report seeing Clearview in Orange County....."  I never knew that this was a "font forum".  I know there's a lot about Clearview and other fonts discussed in certain threads, but still, I never thought this was a "font forum".

The writer's capsule CV identifies him as an architecture journalist.  Given the long history of culture clash between architects and highway engineers, I don't think he particularly cares whether he misdescribes (or dismisses) a road enthusiast Web forum as a "font forum."  And if he had read more closely--it sounds like he did not--he might have realized the Orange County example being talked about is of Frutiger rather than Clearview.

[hbelkins]

That's not a lot of money for a font.

When I was working for a newspaper, we bought a couple of font packs that had hundreds (yes, hundreds) of fonts for about $10. So yeah, that's a lot of money for one font.

[seicer]

I've worked for universities that license (not own) one font for $3,000+ per year. I mean, you can get free fonts easy but the quality of those fonts will vary greatly. It's not easy to create a font that's legible, accessible and broadly available.

[Bobby5280]

I remember retail CDs, such as Key Fonts, back in the 1990's. They would boast hundreds of fonts or even a thousand or more faces. Nearly all were garbage quality. Poorly digitized, poorly kerned and featuring minimal character sets. Some didn't even work properly.

At least one or more of those companies tried pirating the digital outlines of high quality commercial fonts for their junk fonts CDs. Adobe sued one of those companies and won. The defendant tried to argue the letter shapes weren't protected under copyright law, only the font names. Adobe countered saying they were selling software, not just letter shapes. The court found the offending fonts were identical to the font outlines (same number of anchor points, anchor point positions, kerning tables, hinting, etc.) in Adobe's font files.

Today many thousands of free-ware fonts are available at several font sharing web sites. Some sites, like Font Squirrel, offer up some actually really good quality typefaces. As for other very popular typefaces, such as Gotham or Proxima Nova, you gotta whip out that credit card and pay quite a bit to use them legally.

Those junk font collection CDs were poor alternatives to the higher quality font packages bundled in with CorelDRAW and Deneba Canvas. Historically Adobe has been very stingy with their fonts, never bundling very many with Illustrator or PageMaker. The Creative Cloud service TypeKit has lots of good typefaces available, but your Internet connection always must be connected to "sync" any of them to your computer system.

[seicer]

TypeKit has been a blessing, as has Google Fonts. We use Google Fonts at work for our university website as the sync speed between the stylesheet and Google's servers is very quick. I use those same fonts across my own websites with no lag.

TypeKit has been good for Adobe and for the Creative Suite, as long as you have an internet connection. A free plan will allow you to use a significant number of fonts (variants may vary and be limited), but a not-so-cheap plan will give you hundreds of fonts and thousands of variants.