5 ms·

Edit, I had to delete most of the original post. The original testing methodology for the test is actually fairly well documented[1] and the font was designed b

Edit, I had to delete most of the original post. The original testing methodology for the test is actually fairly well documented[1] and the font was designed by Donald Meeker, Terminal Deisgn agency[2][3] and some people from Pensylvania and Texas transportation/highway admin roles[3]. There is more on this topic in the citylab article[5] but it turns out Meeker developed and tested the font. Meeker, for his part says: “Helen Keller can tell you from the grave that Clearview looks better,” and thinks it could be a matter of cost according to the article[5]. TerminalFonts posted a hilarious tweet about it as well[4]. They seemed to have done a decent job researching it, and it was not as cut and dry as simply an a/b test with old signs, but it was rigorously documented. Although, I find reading font testing methodology absurdly boring so I skimmed it. Not really sure what the cost to the government was, but they are certainly killing the font according to every source. According to the citylab article: The FHWA has not yet provided any research on Clearview that disproves the early claims about the font’s benefits. So, I have to apologize, I briefly insinuated that maybe these guys forged the test to get the contract. Instead, they seem like pretty passionate design nerds who meticulously researched this topic and then developed a font around their findings. Apparently, they did a poor job though, according to some unreleased report. [1]http://clearviewhwy.com/ResearchAndDesign/_articles/TRB_Paper.pdf http://clearviewhwy.com/ResearchAndDesign/_articles/TRB_Pape... [2]http://www.terminaldesign.com/web-fonts/ http://www.terminaldesign.com/web-fonts/ [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_(typeface) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_(typeface) [4]https://twitter.com/TerminalDesign/status/693173610538799105 https://twitter.com/TerminalDesign/status/693173610538799105 [5]http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/01/official-united-states-highway-sign-font-clearview/427068/ http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/01/official-united-state... PRICING from www.citylab.com ============== Jurisdictions that adopt Clearview must purchase a standard license for type, a one-time charge of between $175 (for one font) and $795 (for the full 13-font typeface family) and up, depending on the number of workstations. (Meeker and Associates disclaimed exclusive rights to the “Clearview” copyright.)

kriro 11y ago
Thanks for digging up those studies. I hope those weren't the only tests that were conducted. Two groups of 12, 65 years plus, daytime and night time. Word recognition test+legibility test (2 studies with the same setup/subjects etc.). Tested words: Purcel, Dorset, Conyer, Bergen, Ordway, Gurley. Parked car (1993 Ford) at varying distances. Repeat-measures design. ANOVA for material and ANOVA + t-tests for fonts. They used the same sign with bolt-on names for all different cases so the issue linked in the OP doesn't apply to this test. So we have no weather conditions, a very selective population (also notable that gender isn't mentioned at all which is normally standard practice in the subjects section), a questionable list of words (no mention what word/letter distributions look like and why this specific group was picked...they do explain why they built the word group the way they did however). Only one vehicle type. No discussion of sample size, power etc. in the linked studies. It's a decent set of constraints for a single test but we're talking about highway signs for the general population I'd expect more extensive tests than that.
- vonklaus 11y ago
  I deleted my sarcastic response to you upthread, but it could probably be interpreted that their testing methodology might not be accurately summed up as a "you failed science 101" level of embarrassment mistake as you so aptly put it, and that they in fact did a reasonable job creating typefaces that represented the fonts used on highways which were objectively compared in their control environments. Also, they ran 2 tests and they somehow used, or read research by someone who had run, a computer simulation of font degradation to anticipate how it would age. So, I am not sure this is nobel prize worthy, but a bit disingenuous to claim they they are complete morons. edit: while I don't laud the amazing efficiency of our peer reviewed science system, you might also find these included works helpful, these ones seem relavent. I must admit, not being even remotely interested in traffic fonts or the testing of them, I have not read them. Peer reviewed research papers by Donald Meeker as author or co-author have been published by: Transportation Research Record, National Academy of Sciences (2 author, 3 co-author) Ergonomics in Design, the Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (co-author) Transportation Engineering, the Journal of American Society of Civil Engineers (author)
- WorldMaker 11y ago
  It's still more testing and science than Highway Gothic ever got before being installed... Certainly we've had decades of real world experience with it since then, but it's fascinating seeing so many people being so critical against Clearview and it's design science versus Highway Gothic, which had far less rigorous a design process and evaluation.
dfc 11y ago
"Hilarious" tweet: Ask not what your country can do for you Ask what you can do for your country. My country told me to fuck off [bitly link to citylab article] We have drastically different tastes in comedy...
- vonklaus 11y ago
  Exactly this. Obligatory https://xkcd.com/432/ https://xkcd.com/432/.

kriro 11y ago

Thanks for digging up those studies. I hope those weren't the only tests that were conducted. Two groups of 12, 65 years plus, daytime and night time. Word recognition test+legibility test (2 studies with the same setup/subjects etc.). Tested words: Purcel, Dorset, Conyer, Bergen, Ordway, Gurley. Parked car (1993 Ford) at varying distances. Repeat-measures design. ANOVA for material and ANOVA + t-tests for fonts. They used the same sign with bolt-on names for all different cases so the issue linked in the OP doesn't apply to this test. So we have no weather conditions, a very selective population (also notable that gender isn't mentioned at all which is normally standard practice in the subjects section), a questionable list of words (no mention what word/letter distributions look like and why this specific group was picked...they do explain why they built the word group the way they did however). Only one vehicle type. No discussion of sample size, power etc. in the linked studies. It's a decent set of constraints for a single test but we're talking about highway signs for the general population I'd expect more extensive tests than that.

vonklaus 11y ago
I deleted my sarcastic response to you upthread, but it could probably be interpreted that their testing methodology might not be accurately summed up as a "you failed science 101" level of embarrassment mistake as you so aptly put it, and that they in fact did a reasonable job creating typefaces that represented the fonts used on highways which were objectively compared in their control environments. Also, they ran 2 tests and they somehow used, or read research by someone who had run, a computer simulation of font degradation to anticipate how it would age. So, I am not sure this is nobel prize worthy, but a bit disingenuous to claim they they are complete morons. edit: while I don't laud the amazing efficiency of our peer reviewed science system, you might also find these included works helpful, these ones seem relavent. I must admit, not being even remotely interested in traffic fonts or the testing of them, I have not read them. Peer reviewed research papers by Donald Meeker as author or co-author have been published by: Transportation Research Record, National Academy of Sciences (2 author, 3 co-author) Ergonomics in Design, the Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (co-author) Transportation Engineering, the Journal of American Society of Civil Engineers (author)
WorldMaker 11y ago
It's still more testing and science than Highway Gothic ever got before being installed... Certainly we've had decades of real world experience with it since then, but it's fascinating seeing so many people being so critical against Clearview and it's design science versus Highway Gothic, which had far less rigorous a design process and evaluation.

dfc 11y ago

"Hilarious" tweet: Ask not what your country can do for you Ask what you can do for your country. My country told me to fuck off [bitly link to citylab article] We have drastically different tastes in comedy...

vonklaus 11y ago
Exactly this. Obligatory https://xkcd.com/432/ https://xkcd.com/432/.