America's Sudden U-Turn on Highway Fonts | Hacker News Reader

America's Sudden U-Turn on Highway Fonts

citylab.com

46 pointsscarhill17 comments

Wayfinding Sans Pro [1] & [2] from Rulf Herrmann looks like it would be good. It's quirky but with a purpose, to lessen ambiguity by exaggerating unique qualities of a glyph under harsh visibility [not seen it in action on highways in the dark] but will say the current Clearview has something to be desired. In the rain at night letters merge and become hard to distinguish from similar letters [lower case i looks like it could be lower case l under some lighting conditions, for example, if there isn't an l to contrast it with]

[1]http://ilovetypography.com/2012/04/19/the-design-of-a-signag...

[2]http://www.fonts.info/store/index.php/en/fonts/wayfinding-sa...

* Ralf Herrmann

Blurring the sign digitally to simulate how it might looks at night, under reflection and in bad weather is a darn good idea.

I suspect that the thinner strokes of Highway Gothic would fare better in this test than the thicker Clearsign. When we look at the "Expressway" image in your [1] reference, the difference between the top and bottom is reminiscent of Hwy. Gothic versus Clearsign.

I prefer Clearview, but it was disappointing to learn that it's [essentially] a public work and yet it's proprietary and requires jurisdictions to license the typeface.

The whole font licensing situation is out of control.

It's a mix of creative interpretations of the law and rent-seeking on typeface designs that are a hundred years old (Akzidenz Grotesk, the basis for every Helvetica-like), or 300 years old in the case of Caslon.

Remember that in a lot of countries (the US included) typefaces are specifically excluded from being copyrightable due to their usefulness to the public; they can of course, be trademarked, but it's completely legal to trace any font you like and call it something else. In a nice bit of corporate welfare, it was decided that font files fall under copyright in 1992.

I would expect governments to pay once for the right to use such a font in perpetuity for its intended purpose. I don't begrudge typographers their remuneration, but from a public standpoint it makes no sense to have to license a typeface separately for every government computer that needs to use it to design road signs.

This led me to this interesting Wikipedia page listing public signage fonts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_signage_typefac...

Lots of info seems to be missing. This seems a bit better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_European_road_si...

> small change that has huge implications for the nation.

Waaay overstated.

Anyway, they should just pick the fonts out of this:

http://standardsmanual.com/

I learned about this via HN some time ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8302529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6117593

Meanwhile we get huge electronic billboards that switch advertisements every few seconds. They initially hurt my eyes to even look at them, but it seems they've "detuned" them in recent years. Sigh.

New Transport Pro in the UK is such a nice font and I'm glad we have it.

Even the government homepage gov.uk uses it

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com