5 ms·

I'm not really seeing your perspective, it seems clear to me. I'll reserve final judgement for if I ever see them in person, but from the three images in the ar

I'm not really seeing your perspective, it seems clear to me. I'll reserve final judgement for if I ever see them in person, but from the three images in the article I saw no problems.

vacri 11y ago
In that second photo, the e-ink contrast fails web accessibility standards. Background is #889294, darkest foreground I found was #5e6669 (most foreground was not this dark) http://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ http://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ Or easier: compare to the signs around it. It's much less readable. Traffic signs aren't like Funky Website Of The Month. It's not okay for traffic signs to just ignore inconvenient users - so even if they were skirting some visibility standards, it wouldn't be good enough. They need to be really clear, not barely passable (and this sign isn't even that). And this photo is reasonably lit, without overcast conditions, mist, or rain. People often forget to include those when discussing road-related things like speed limits or signage.
- bradjohnson 11y ago
  Traffic signs? Sure. But what was shown in the article was a replacement for confusing parking signs which would be much less critical for passing cars to immediately be able to discern. I really think that regardless of how much you need to squint to make out a parking sign it would still be better than some of those monstrosities that have about 20 exceptions depending on the time of day.
  - vacri 11y ago
    The signs in the article photos will do nothing to reduce confusion around parking signs. They're all special-purpose Clearway signs. The intent of the sign is not in the e-ink part; that bit only gives you some timing information. As a result, it has no bearing on the problem of locations with multiple parking rules - it is still 'just another rule'. Have a look at their sample photos. Two of the photos have the sign by themselves. This clears up what kind of confusion? How are they better then a normal sign in this location? The remaining photo has two other signs, which work together fine with a non-e-ink version of the e-ink sign. Hardly a monstrosity. The only advantage the photographed sign really has is that the council can easily change the details on it between different roadwork events, without having to glue a new set of numbers on it.

I'm not really seeing your perspective, it seems clear to me. I'll reserve final judgement for if I ever see them in person, but from the three images in the article I saw no problems.

vacri 11y ago

In that second photo, the e-ink contrast fails web accessibility standards. Background is #889294, darkest foreground I found was #5e6669 (most foreground was not this dark) http://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ http://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ Or easier: compare to the signs around it. It's much less readable. Traffic signs aren't like Funky Website Of The Month. It's not okay for traffic signs to just ignore inconvenient users - so even if they were skirting some visibility standards, it wouldn't be good enough. They need to be really clear, not barely passable (and this sign isn't even that). And this photo is reasonably lit, without overcast conditions, mist, or rain. People often forget to include those when discussing road-related things like speed limits or signage.

bradjohnson 11y ago
Traffic signs? Sure. But what was shown in the article was a replacement for confusing parking signs which would be much less critical for passing cars to immediately be able to discern. I really think that regardless of how much you need to squint to make out a parking sign it would still be better than some of those monstrosities that have about 20 exceptions depending on the time of day.
- vacri 11y ago
  The signs in the article photos will do nothing to reduce confusion around parking signs. They're all special-purpose Clearway signs. The intent of the sign is not in the e-ink part; that bit only gives you some timing information. As a result, it has no bearing on the problem of locations with multiple parking rules - it is still 'just another rule'. Have a look at their sample photos. Two of the photos have the sign by themselves. This clears up what kind of confusion? How are they better then a normal sign in this location? The remaining photo has two other signs, which work together fine with a non-e-ink version of the e-ink sign. Hardly a monstrosity. The only advantage the photographed sign really has is that the council can easily change the details on it between different roadwork events, without having to glue a new set of numbers on it.