3 ms·

itt and in the article, everyone talks about legibility etc but nobody points to any study (or even pictures) on how those fonts compare under low conditions (n

by gcb0 11y ago

itt and in the article, everyone talks about legibility etc but nobody points to any study (or even pictures) on how those fonts compare under low conditions (night, rain, not illuminated, headlight full on) usability is about the 5% cases. in broad day light the fonts only compare in a matter of personal taste.

rawTruthHurts 11y ago
I don't think low conditions have anything to do with the fonts per se.
- michaelbuddy 11y ago
  yes they would, if a font is more readable, it's more readable. And you can test it measuring recognition time and distance. And you can test in the sub optimal conditions mentioned, just like you could test readability on sub optimal substrates, resolution, degradation etc. It's not easy, but it's testable. i would like to see these articles accompanied by some in car photos of the signs being visible, where their conclusion is shown.
  - rawTruthHurts 11y ago
    The most readable font on a matte surface won't perfom as good as a not-so-readable font on a reflective surface during a rainy night. So, again, it's more an issue with the material, not the type. As long as they don't use, say, palace script.
- gcb0 11y ago
  think it that way: on a clear day you can read font X 10 words in under a second. font Y can be read 12 words in under a second. both are awesome, and a change would not improve anything. on a night rainy day with little illumination, font X can be read at 7 words per second and font Y can be read at most on 3 words per second. Making font X clearly superior to font Y.
JadeNB 11y ago
> everyone talks about legibility etc but nobody points to any study (or even pictures) on how those fonts compare under low conditions (night, rain, not illuminated, headlight full on) That doesnn't seem to be quite true: > In 2004, the agency embraced Clearview, based on studies that appeared to demonstrate its superiority, especially in nighttime driving tests. Granted, mentioning studies generally is different to pointing to specific studies, but still it seems clear that exactly the issues you raise are of concern.

by gcb0 11y ago

rawTruthHurts 11y ago

I don't think low conditions have anything to do with the fonts per se.

michaelbuddy 11y ago
yes they would, if a font is more readable, it's more readable. And you can test it measuring recognition time and distance. And you can test in the sub optimal conditions mentioned, just like you could test readability on sub optimal substrates, resolution, degradation etc. It's not easy, but it's testable. i would like to see these articles accompanied by some in car photos of the signs being visible, where their conclusion is shown.
- rawTruthHurts 11y ago
  The most readable font on a matte surface won't perfom as good as a not-so-readable font on a reflective surface during a rainy night. So, again, it's more an issue with the material, not the type. As long as they don't use, say, palace script.
gcb0 11y ago
think it that way: on a clear day you can read font X 10 words in under a second. font Y can be read 12 words in under a second. both are awesome, and a change would not improve anything. on a night rainy day with little illumination, font X can be read at 7 words per second and font Y can be read at most on 3 words per second. Making font X clearly superior to font Y.

JadeNB 11y ago

> everyone talks about legibility etc but nobody points to any study (or even pictures) on how those fonts compare under low conditions (night, rain, not illuminated, headlight full on) That doesnn't seem to be quite true: > In 2004, the agency embraced Clearview, based on studies that appeared to demonstrate its superiority, especially in nighttime driving tests. Granted, mentioning studies generally is different to pointing to specific studies, but still it seems clear that exactly the issues you raise are of concern.