AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: The Clearview Subject  (Read 118298 times)

TCN7JM

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 116
  • Avatar = Most recent clinch

  • Age: 22
  • Location: Sioux Falls, SD
  • Last Login: June 28, 2016, 02:18:50 AM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2013, 08:17:58 PM »


I'm pretty sure that that is how Clearview is intended to be used - at least according to the FHWA page on Clearview. (Located here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/ ) Here's what I'm talking about...

Quote
   
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.

An image of a guide sign is shown with the legend "Nuangola 2 MILES." The destination of Nuangola is displayed in upper- and lower-case letters of the alternative alphabet. The distance legend of 2 MILES is shown in all upper-case letters of the Standard Alphabets.

Figure 4. ACCEPTABLE: Example of appropriate use of Clearview for destination legend (mixed-case) and FHWA Standard Alphabets for other legends (all upper-case and numerals).

That isn't the type of sign I'm talking about, though. This sign actually looks alright. It was just that the usage of different fonts literally one space away from each other was horrendous. It'd be like if I put the last word of this sentence in 14pt bold for no particular reason.
Logged
London: The Sioux Falls of Europe

ClinchedCounties

(Both are terribly out of date; I apologize)

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3867
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:30:25 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2013, 12:22:14 AM »

Despite WisDOT rejecting Clearview, my home town City of Appleton began using a condensed version of it on its street name blade signs last summer (ie, see: http://goo.gl/maps/MBYjG This image was shot during September of 2012 at Superior/Washington in downtown Appleton) and the City's public works guys have been going hog-wild with new signs with that font throughout the city this year.

Also note that little white blotch below the directional 'W' on that sign - with the conversion to that font last year, the City is now date-stamping its blade signs, the blotch says "12".

Mike
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2013, 12:56:10 AM »

Yup, Clearview is presently only being used on an interim basis, and only for positive contrast (light legend on dark background), which essentially means freeway BGS and other similar applications. It is not allowed for use on negative contrast (dark legend on light background), as studies have not shown it to be any more legible than the standard FHWA Series fonts.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

PurdueBill

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1219
  • Last Login: November 24, 2020, 11:41:45 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2013, 04:33:05 PM »

Yup, Clearview is presently only being used on an interim basis, and only for positive contrast (light legend on dark background), which essentially means freeway BGS and other similar applications. It is not allowed for use on negative contrast (dark legend on light background), as studies have not shown it to be any more legible than the standard FHWA Series fonts.

While that's what FHWA has approved, the reality has unfortunately been that it's been used in all the wrong ways. Negative contrast, all-caps, numbers in shields, numbers for distances and exit numbers...none of those are approved uses but they are out there--big time in some places.    I think that contributes to my dislike for it--it's being misused in places it doesn't belong like exit gore signs and all-caps street sign blades that shouldn't have any Clearview at all and probably because the people who sell it don't tell the buyers just how restricted the approved usage really is.
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6839
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: November 24, 2020, 11:49:21 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2013, 07:38:57 PM »

Yup, Clearview is presently only being used on an interim basis, and only for positive contrast (light legend on dark background), which essentially means freeway BGS and other similar applications. It is not allowed for use on negative contrast (dark legend on light background), as studies have not shown it to be any more legible than the standard FHWA Series fonts.

While that's what FHWA has approved, the reality has unfortunately been that it's been used in all the wrong ways. Negative contrast, all-caps, numbers in shields, numbers for distances and exit numbers...none of those are approved uses but they are out there--big time in some places.

While those usages are all deprecated by FHWA in its Clearview FAQ, not all of them are unapproved.  The controlling document is still the Interim Approval memorandum of September 2, 2004, which in its pertinent parts reads:

Quote from: FHWA
Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to issue an Interim Approval for the optional use of the Clearview font for positive contrast legends on guide signs.

. . .

Conditions of Interim Approval: Spacing of Clearview font shall follow the spacing tables for Clearview, and not SHS E-modified. This includes the use of the Clearview 5-W(R) spacing tables for overhead conditions that may not accommodate a Clearview 5-W legend in replacement of existing E-modified legends. Action word messages and cardinal directions shall remain in all upper case letters and the first upper case letter of a cardinal direction shall be 10 percent greater in height for conventional road guide signs as per Table 2E.1 through Table 2E.4 of the 2003 MUTCD for expressway/freeway guide signs. The Clearview font should not be used on negative contrast signs until research demonstrates the effectiveness.

So, parsing the memorandum with regard to various deprecated practices related to Clearview:

Negative contrast--Not approved, but the prohibitory language is weak ("should not" rather than "shall not")

All caps for distance expressions, cardinal direction words, action messages, etc.--Approved (memorandum says all caps must continue to be used for these, and does not say that Clearview cannot be used)

Clearview digits against main sign background color--Approved

Clearview digits in shields--Not approved if in negative contrast; unclear if in positive contrast.  It depends on whether route markers are considered guide signs, or their own type of sign.  FHWA classifies conventional-road guide signs as D-series signs, freeway/expressway guide signs as E-series signs, and route marker signs as M-series signs.  The MUTCD guide signing chapters (2D and 2E) all address the use of D-, E-, and M-series signs.  If route markers are guide signs, then use of Clearview digits is permitted as long as they appear in positive contrast; Clearview digits in negative contrast are banned regardless of how route markers are classified

Interline spacing for Clearview legend set equal to three-quarters capital letter height rather than the lowercase loop height for Clearview--Not addressed in the memorandum.  Design of Clearview signs in the vast majority of states has proceeded on the assumption that the same interline spacing can be used as for Series E Modified:  i.e., 75% of capital letter height (which is the same as lowercase loop height for that typeface).  This rule has traditionally been framed as interline spacing set equal to lowercase loop height, however, and FHWA is now trying to say that this means the interline spacing of Clearview, i.e., 84% of capital letter height rather than 75%.  I don't agree with FHWA on this issue; I don't think the added green space brings any legibility benefits to justify the cost.  Given that Clearview 5-W-R has been designed specifically as a drop-in replacement for Series E Modified, which implies that it has the same interline spacing as well as the same legend line widths, I think the operating assumption has to be that Clearview is engineered for legibility at the same interline spacings--calculated as 75% of capital letter height--as the FHWA series

Quote
I think that contributes to my dislike for it--it's being misused in places it doesn't belong like exit gore signs and all-caps street sign blades that shouldn't have any Clearview at all and probably because the people who sell it don't tell the buyers just how restricted the approved usage really is.

Exit gore signs and street sign blades (whether all-caps or not) are guide signs in positive contrast and are therefore approved uses of Clearview.  The real problem, as I see it, is not that Clearview is used in these applications, but rather that the use of all caps for primary destination legend (including names of streets) shows ignorance of the fact that the published test results compare only mixed-case Clearview 5-W and 5-W-R with mixed-case Series E Modified.  No test results have been published, as far as I know, for all-caps Clearview in any series, much less in comparison to all-caps or mixed-case FHWA series other than E Modified.

The more serious problem is that the last two MUTCD revisions have seriously messed up legibility control for guide signs by permitting the use of mixed-case alphabet series other than FHWA Series E Modified, while leaving the choice of alphabet series to designer discretion.  If the legibility properties of mixed-case legend in the new FHWA 2000 Series typefaces are known, then the test results have not been published.  Given that the MUTCD's guide sign design standards for conventional roads are already deeply unconservative (6" uppercase letters allowed for roads subject to speed limits of up to 75 MPH, versus 16" uppercase typical for freeways) and many states exercise additional design options which add to sign reading problems (e.g., including direction, destination, and distance information on a single sign on the approach to a junction), this sets the stage for a serious degradation in sign readability which will likely have to be addressed through a future MUTCD revision.

Ironically enough, the states that opted to convert to Clearview for guide signs are in a somewhat better position than most others with regard to this issue.  Texas and Michigan, for example, used their Clearview changeovers to bootstrap mixed-case legend on conventional-road guide signs with a higher capital letter height.  The previous standard in both states (essentially the same as the vanilla MUTCD) was 6" all-caps Series D; the new standard is mixed-case Clearview with 7" capital letters in Michigan and 8" in Texas.  (The lesser enhancement still leaves Clearview legend with a loop height more or less equal to the capital letter height under the old standard.)  Texas and Michigan could do still better by restricting Clearview series choice to 5-W or 5-W-R, both of which are proven.

California and Washington have both long used mixed-case Series E Modified at an enhanced capital letter height for conventional-road guide signs.  More states should follow their example instead of messing around with mixed-case Series D, C, or even B.  And yes, there are documented instances of mixed-case Series B on guide signs--Vermont in particular likes it.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 07:45:31 PM by J N Winkler »
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

DaBigE

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1970
  • Following the LEGO® brick road

  • Age: 36
  • Location: Southcentral Wisconsin
  • Last Login: April 23, 2020, 04:51:41 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2013, 09:21:08 PM »

Despite WisDOT rejecting Clearview, my home town City of Appleton began using a condensed version of it on its street name blade signs last summer (ie, see: http://goo.gl/maps/MBYjG This image was shot during September of 2012 at Superior/Washington in downtown Appleton) and the City's public works guys have been going hog-wild with new signs with that font throughout the city this year.

Also note that little white blotch below the directional 'W' on that sign - with the conversion to that font last year, the City is now date-stamping its blade signs, the blotch says "12".

Mike

How old are these signs http://goo.gl/maps/d8CWU? I was just in Appleton yesterday and saw a bunch of these with the apple logo, definitely not Clearview.
Logged
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

machias

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 760
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Chicago, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 11:13:13 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #31 on: July 14, 2013, 09:23:46 PM »

If FHWA would just go to Series E instead of Series E(M), Clearview would have no leg to stand on re: stroke width, hole size, and halation.

I agree with this as well, there are some signs on I-390 SB in the Rochester, New York area that use Series E instead of Series E(m) lettering (but to Series E(m) letter spacing) and it appears to be easier to read than Clearview and Series E(m).  I pointed this out to a couple of engineers in NYSDOT Region 4 and they agreed.

Logged

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3867
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:30:25 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #32 on: July 14, 2013, 09:41:35 PM »

Despite WisDOT rejecting Clearview, my home town City of Appleton began using a condensed version of it on its street name blade signs last summer (ie, see: http://goo.gl/maps/MBYjG This image was shot during September of 2012 at Superior/Washington in downtown Appleton) and the City's public works guys have been going hog-wild with new signs with that font throughout the city this year.

Also note that little white blotch below the directional 'W' on that sign - with the conversion to that font last year, the City is now date-stamping its blade signs, the blotch says "12".

Mike

How old are these signs http://goo.gl/maps/d8CWU? I was just in Appleton yesterday and saw a bunch of these with the apple logo, definitely not Clearview.

Yea, they were installed when the College Ave street was repaved through the downtown area about eight, ten years or so ago.  In addition, the City installed blade signs with a fancy script 'W' logo on the entire length of Wisconsin Ave (WI 96) in the City last year when the last of that street's major rebuild was completed.  Those signs are also pre-Clearview.  See: http://goo.gl/maps/eqFyf for an example.

Mike
Logged

aswnl

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 74
  • Location: The Netherlands
  • Last Login: August 25, 2020, 09:11:44 AM
    • Autosnelwegen.nl
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2013, 10:44:16 AM »

In the Netherlands (NL) we also use E(M), its called Ee over here.
Two years ago a new font has been derived: Dd. The idea behind it is something you Americans would call Series D (modified); i.e. Series D with a little more space between the characters. Chances are high that Dd will replace the quite new Uu-font on non-freeways in NL.

Here some examples:

Ee:




Ee and Dd:


Dd:




And this is Uu (the Dutch 90-ies redesign-clearview-development), that will probably be replaced bij Dd:
(exitnumbers are in Ee/E(m))

What do you all think of Uu and Dd [or: D(m) ] versus Ee/E(m)
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 11:39:04 AM by aswnl »
Logged
Not a country in the world is rich enough affording the wealth of bad roads.
© King William I of Holland

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10899
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 07:20:27 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2013, 11:34:22 AM »

Dd (aka D(m)) looks rather nice.  It fits in well with the E(m) (aka Ee) used.  Uu on the other hand - blech.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11765
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 06:32:41 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2013, 11:41:55 AM »

What amuses me about the FHWA Cleaview FAQ cited several times in this thread is that a good number of the signs shown in that FAQ as bad examples are signs I pass on a regular basis.  :-D

I find Clearview a lot easier to read from a distance than the Gothic fonts commonly in use around here. The font I've always liked, though, is the one Georgia uses on many signs. I believe it's a modified Series D? I hardly ever see it used anywhere else (currently I know of one BGS in Virginia that uses either that font or a very similar one; another nearby BGS was replaced in the last few years). To my eyes it's always had a nice look to it and it's easier to read than the thicker-style Gothic commonly used around here.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Big John

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2183
  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: Today at 11:50:10 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2013, 11:46:10 AM »

^^ Georgia is now using the E(M) font, but is not systemically replacing all their signs so most of their D signs are still up.

I prefer the E over E(M) as the latter was made to accommodate button copy and is too bold to stand up on its own.
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11765
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 06:32:41 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2013, 11:49:03 AM »

^^ Georgia is now using the E(M) font, but is not systemically replacing all their signs so most of their D signs are still up.

....

Too bad as to the former. Good as to the latter. I don't drive through Georgia that often (typically twice a year going to and from Florida), so I don't see the signs as often as I did in the 1990s when I headed south more frequently. I've always found their D signs easier to read than E(M), though I find Clearview easier to read than either.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 39
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2013, 12:44:25 PM »

Two years ago a new font has been derived: Dd. The idea behind it is something you Americans would call Series D (modified); i.e. Series D with a little more space between the characters.

the key modification is the weight of the font: the line thickness.  I believe the (M) series, as used in the US, is 10% bolder.  (I'd have to look up that number.)  I know California used BM, CM, DM in the 40s and 50s, and CM and DM have shown up in other places as well.  I've never seen AM, and I've seen a few button elements that are FM. 

it looks like Dd is DM, in that the stroke thickness is indeed bolder. 

Quote
What do you all think of Uu and Dd [or: D(m) ] versus Ee/E(m)

as can be expected, I don't much like Uu.  I am fine with Dd and Ee. 

that said, haven't there been studies which say that the regular weight (D and E) are more legible than the modified?  I seem to recall that the main reason EM persisted for so long was because of button copy: plain E would not accommodate reflectors.  California gave up on the M weights other than button copy by 1973.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

aswnl

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 74
  • Location: The Netherlands
  • Last Login: August 25, 2020, 09:11:44 AM
    • Autosnelwegen.nl
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #39 on: October 18, 2013, 05:41:06 AM »

Thank you all for your comments.

Two years ago a new font has been derived: Dd. The idea behind it is something you Americans would call Series D (modified); i.e. Series D with a little more space between the characters.

the key modification is the weight of the font: the line thickness.  I believe the (M) series, as used in the US, is 10% bolder.  (I'd have to look up that number.)  I know California used BM, CM, DM in the 40s and 50s, and CM and DM have shown up in other places as well.  I've never seen AM, and I've seen a few button elements that are FM. 

it looks like Dd is DM, in that the stroke thickness is indeed bolder. 
OK, this was the kind of info I was looking for.

as can be expected, I don't much like Uu.  I am fine with Dd and Ee. 
You are not the only one. Returning to the Interstate font family and abolishing the newer Uu-font isn't an easy decision, but it's the logical consequence of learning from mistakes. Not everything new is better...
Logged
Not a country in the world is rich enough affording the wealth of bad roads.
© King William I of Holland

Dr Frankenstein

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1491
  • Canada Freezes Before Your Roads.

  • Age: 30
  • Location: LeMoyne, QC
  • Last Login: October 23, 2020, 10:17:36 AM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2013, 09:07:26 AM »

I actually like Uu.

... *runs away*
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6839
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: November 24, 2020, 11:49:21 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #41 on: October 18, 2013, 10:45:24 AM »

What do you all think of Uu and Dd [or: D(m) ] versus Ee/E(m)

Just to add to what Jake said upthread:  the bolding (increase in stroke width) that is used to produce "modified" versions of the FHWA alphabet series amounts to an increase in the original stroke width, but I don't think the increase is actually 10% (as Jake says) or 11% (as I have calculated in the past).  There is a Caltrans publication, Overhead Signing and Contract Sign Plans (1989) (prepared jointly by District 7 and Headquarters), which has a table of ratios of stroke width to uppercase letter height for both the FHWA alphabet series and the Caltrans alphabet series.  The Caltrans series are essentially "bolded" versions of the FHWA series.  The 1989 publication says the "bolding" is done by adding 20% to the FHWA stroke width.  The tabulated values are as follows:

SeriesCaltransFHWA
B0.140.125
C0.160.141
D0.180.156
E0.200.172
E Modified(None)0.20
F0.220.188

Caltrans now specifies the FHWA series and has officially discontinued its own alphabets.  I suspect, however, that they continue to be used on reflective signs which are produced using old silkscreen tools.  Most of Caltrans' specs for warning and regulatory signs have not been updated since a "Great Redrawing" in 1972, which has allowed old art to remain in use for decades depending on how well it stands up to repeated use in sign fabrication.  The difference is especially glaring on text-message warning signs which have some letters in Caltrans and some letters in FHWA in the same line of legend, as occasionally happens.

Aswnl, I am not sure whether your question solicits technical information or an aesthetic judgment.  I do not know enough about Dd (or for that matter Ee or Uu) to say whether the extent of bolding is the same as for modified FHWA Series D (Caltrans Series D).  It also has to be noted that the FHWA series other than E Modified were uppercase-only until quite recently, so lowercase letters in Dd have no equivalent in modified D as traditionally used in the US.

Judging from the posts upthread, I'd say it is unequivocally the consensus view that Uu is awful.  Whether Uu is more widely disliked than Clearview (which does have its advocates on this forum) is a harder question to answer.  It seems to me that it is, but the responses upthread amount to a small and therefore statistically unreliable sample.

The Netherlands is far from the only country in Europe to have attempted to replace its default typeface for highway signs, or in doing so to substitute a humanist typeface for a gothic one.  Of the others that have tried it, I think it is fair to say that only Switzerland (where ASTRA-Frutiger is an able successor to the SNV typefaces) and Austria (where the TERN typefaces are slowly replacing the "old DIN" previously used) have experienced anything like unqualified success.  Spain has recently published an updated edition of Norma 8.1-IC, which deals with vertical signing, and substitutes Carretera Convencional (a much bolder, Transport-derived typeface) for Autopista (a Spanish near-clone of Series E Modified) in most contexts where the latter was previously used.  I think the resulting signs look ugly, and this change will lead to tears if it is not reversed in short order.

It also seems to me that by making Dd available to sign designers, the Rijkwaterstaat (if that is what the Dutch equivalent to FHWA is still called) has set up the same trap as FHWA has done in the 2003 and 2009 editions of the MUTCD, which is to allow the widespread use of typefaces of lower intrinsic legibility.  Dd, however well designed it is, is too condensed to match Ee for legibility.  The conservative approach to design is therefore whenever possible to avoid substituting Dd for Ee, and when Dd must be used, to make some compensating alteration in the sign design--such as dropping one or more destinations--to ensure motorists' task loads are not increased.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 39
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2013, 10:51:26 AM »

The 1989 publication says the "bolding" is done by adding 20% to the FHWA stroke width. 

how are they saying 20%, and we came up with 10/11%?  that is a huge discrepancy which implies to me a different measurement system.  what is going on here?
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6839
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: November 24, 2020, 11:49:21 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #43 on: October 18, 2013, 11:19:55 AM »

The 1989 publication says the "bolding" is done by adding 20% to the FHWA stroke width.

how are they saying 20%, and we came up with 10/11%?  that is a huge discrepancy which implies to me a different measurement system.  what is going on here?

I accept entire responsibility for the discrepancy.  For quite a long time, before I actually went to my camera copy of the 1989 publication to double-check, I was under the impression that the stroke-width-to-height ratios for FHWA Series E and E Modified were 0.18 and 0.20 respectively.  0.20/0.18 = 1.11111 = 111% = 11% increase.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 39
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #44 on: October 18, 2013, 12:02:53 PM »

I'm still not sure how your chart works.  I've added a ratio column, which is Caltrans/FHWA - 1

SeriesCaltransFHWAratio
B0.140.125.12
C0.160.141.134
D0.180.156.153
E0.200.172.162
E Modified(None)0.20n/a
F0.220.188.17

as for my 10%, I'm not sure where I got it... for my shield designs, which require DM, I use the 1957 G26R spec, which states calls for stroke width 0.18 per inch of height.  I remember once calculating out what the stroke thickness (the stroke being the perimeter around the glyph in this case) had to be in Inkscape to modify D to the proper resultant width, and that may have been .1 of something or another, but I just plain don't recall.

in any case, it's not good that we both independently came up with something quite wrong.  perhaps we should perform self-flagellation.  I will close my eyes and imagine highway signs in Arialveticverstesk for the next 10 minutes.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6839
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: November 24, 2020, 11:49:21 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #45 on: October 18, 2013, 01:19:35 PM »

I'm still not sure how your chart works.  I've added a ratio column, which is Caltrans/FHWA - 1

SeriesCaltransFHWAratio
B0.140.125.12
C0.160.141.134
D0.180.156.153
E0.200.172.162
E Modified(None)0.20n/a
F0.220.188.17

I checked your values and, yes, it looks like the chart (which is typed straight from the 1989 publication) disagrees with the part in the text where it says the Caltrans stroke is obtained by adding 20% to the FHWA stroke for the same series.

Quote
in any case, it's not good that we both independently came up with something quite wrong.  perhaps we should perform self-flagellation.  I will close my eyes and imagine highway signs in Arialveticverstesk for the next 10 minutes.

I don't see a lot of value in taking the whips, flails, cilices, etc. out of the closet when a source that is supposed to be authoritative is internally inconsistent.  (This is not without precedent where Caltrans documentation is concerned--I remember a 1958 edition of the traffic manual that said to use Series D with lowercase at a 3:2 height ratio, and was accompanied by art showing Series E used instead.)  And, anyway, ten minutes of imaging Arialveticverstesk displays sounds like an excellent recipe for PTSD.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 39
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #46 on: October 18, 2013, 02:19:07 PM »

I checked your values and, yes, it looks like the chart (which is typed straight from the 1989 publication) disagrees with the part in the text where it says the Caltrans stroke is obtained by adding 20% to the FHWA stroke for the same series.

not unfamiliar when dealing with Cal Div Hwys.  there is a good reason why there are so many different variants of shields from the ~1956-1964 era.  sometimes it really is someone following "a little bit of spec A, a little bit of spec B", not realizing that the two specs are different (say, mixing the 1956 shield shape with the 1957 materials reference, yielding an extra pointy CA spade with retroreflective sheeting).  other times, the spec itself is internally inconsistent.

Quote
I don't see a lot of value in taking the whips, flails, cilices, etc. out of the closet when a source that is supposed to be authoritative is internally inconsistent.

as punishment, we will have to render the design based on lengths and radii.

Mexico's 1986 route marker cutout is undrawable, as is Series A glyph "8" as specified in a 1966 manual I've got.  the shield generator "8" is the result of me doing the best I could with the 1966, and copying a field photograph to eyeball the rest.

Quote
(This is not without precedent where Caltrans documentation is concerned--I remember a 1958 edition of the traffic manual that said to use Series D with lowercase at a 3:2 height ratio, and was accompanied by art showing Series E used instead.)  And, anyway, ten minutes of imaging Arialveticverstesk displays sounds like an excellent recipe for PTSD.

indeed, the 1963 US shield spec has this issue.  if you follow the lengths and radii, you get a markedly different shield than what is drawn.  they copied the 1957 drawing unchanged, and changed the lengths and radii.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

aswnl

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 74
  • Location: The Netherlands
  • Last Login: August 25, 2020, 09:11:44 AM
    • Autosnelwegen.nl
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #47 on: October 18, 2013, 03:45:37 PM »

It also seems to me that by making Dd available to sign designers, the Rijkwaterstaat (if that is what the Dutch equivalent to FHWA is still called) has set up the same trap as FHWA has done in the 2003 and 2009 editions of the MUTCD, which is to allow the widespread use of typefaces of lower intrinsic legibility.  Dd, however well designed it is, is too condensed to match Ee for legibility.  The conservative approach to design is therefore whenever possible to avoid substituting Dd for Ee, and when Dd must be used, to make some compensating alteration in the sign design--such as dropping one or more destinations--to ensure motorists' task loads are not increased.
No, that's not the case. Dd/DM will replace Uu, but not Ee/EM. On freeways Ee will be used in the future. Dd/DM is only to be used in NL as a replacement of kerned Ee/EM.

Kerned Ee/EM is what you can see here for the destination "Holten-Oost".  (Oost=East).
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 11:42:06 AM by aswnl »
Logged
Not a country in the world is rich enough affording the wealth of bad roads.
© King William I of Holland

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 39
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #48 on: October 18, 2013, 03:49:13 PM »

(It's called "gekernd Ee) in Dutch, I don't know the proper English term)

"kerned".  the English verb "to kern" is a typographic term that means to diminish the spacing between letters.  I'm assuming Dutch has a verb "kern" as well, as "gekernd" looks like a regular past participle form of it.

"kerned Ee" is a perfectly valid translation, as it is more specific than "condensed Ee".  condensation may be done the proper way, via kerning, or it could be done the improper way with a Photoshop horizontal scaling.    :ded:
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11765
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 06:32:41 PM
Re: The Clearview Subject
« Reply #49 on: October 18, 2013, 04:37:50 PM »

A good way to visualize kerning is to picture the letter combination "VA." Without kerning, the right end of the "V" (the top of the right-hand slant, for lack of a better term) will line up just even with the far left tip of the left "foot" of the "A." If you're using a serif font (Times New Roman being the one most familiar to most people on a daily basis) the effect is a bit more pronounced because it is the tip of the serif that determines where the "V" ends and the "A" begins. Kerning pushes the letters closer together, so to speak—the leftmost serif at the bottom of the "A" can begin in the space underneath the rightmost serif at the top of the "V."

Some font designers will incorporate some amount of kerning by default in proportionally-spaced fonts to avoid the ugly problem that occurs with too much white space. Alternatively, some software will automatically apply kerning. Microsoft Word 2010 applies it by default to proportionally-spaced fonts sized to 10-point or larger. In the sample below (Times New Roman 48-point), the bottom line uses Word's default kerning and the top line uses no kerning. The sample on the right is exactly the same text (after I created the image I copied the sample to the right of itself) and I've drawn a line to illustrate the point.

Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.