5 ms·

It turns out that all that research suggesting the new font might be more legible was more due to the fact that older, worn signs were being replaced with nice,

It turns out that all that research suggesting the new font might be more legible was more due to the fact that older, worn signs were being replaced with nice, fresh, clean signs which were, naturally, more legible. That's not super correct, I don't think. They researched this and documented it quite well[1], it also seems to be independently researched in this book I couldn't imagine anyone ever read[2] about traffic fonts. Also, that source[2] cites like 3 studies of independent people researching this topic over like a 6 year period. It also seems that this report 'proving' errors in the testing methodology is not released yet. So, like what the fuck? These dudes(they were all men) spend some time researching various methodologies for developing roadway font, which is probably extremely dull, and then they incorporate their results into a font sepcifically for roadways and the government says it is not effective? That's cool, the font is like 175 - 800 bucks per jurisdiction, just say you don't want to pay. I mean, this is a massive taxpayer expense probably on par with the rusting helicopters and power plant that can't function we built in Iraq(saw that shit on Vice). Also, publicly call these guys morons and don't release the results. Classy. [1]http://clearviewhwy.com/ResearchAndDesign/_articles/TRB_Paper.pdf http://clearviewhwy.com/ResearchAndDesign/_articles/TRB_Pape... [2]https://books.google.com/books?id=iFCZ53i5XXgC&pg=PA126&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=iFCZ53i5XXgC&pg=PA126&hl=e...

jacobolus 11y ago
I agree, the FHWA’s claims are highly suspect. They should release their supposed evidence, or come clean about their real reasoning. I’m also guessing the price is the main issue. But that seems pretty ridiculous; it’s a relative pittance compared to the overall cost of signage. That or someone in charge really prefers the older typeface.
- Aloha 11y ago
  I dont - I can see some credence to the claims for dark on light signs - of course I'm enough of a road geek to have a preference over which flavor of Highway Gothic I prefer (Series E, Modified). I suspect while there may be some improvement with clearview, its not enough of one to justify the cost differential.
TheCondor 11y ago
Has there ever been a non-reputed study of font readability? Font creators are more often concerned with aesthetics and aren't usually capable of doing the studies. Plus there is the whole "if it's old it must suck" mindset that pervades design in general.

jacobolus 11y ago

I agree, the FHWA’s claims are highly suspect. They should release their supposed evidence, or come clean about their real reasoning. I’m also guessing the price is the main issue. But that seems pretty ridiculous; it’s a relative pittance compared to the overall cost of signage. That or someone in charge really prefers the older typeface.

Aloha 11y ago
I dont - I can see some credence to the claims for dark on light signs - of course I'm enough of a road geek to have a preference over which flavor of Highway Gothic I prefer (Series E, Modified). I suspect while there may be some improvement with clearview, its not enough of one to justify the cost differential.

TheCondor 11y ago

Has there ever been a non-reputed study of font readability? Font creators are more often concerned with aesthetics and aren't usually capable of doing the studies. Plus there is the whole "if it's old it must suck" mindset that pervades design in general.