The feds are killing off Clearview, the new highway sign font | Hacker News Reader

The feds are killing off Clearview, the new highway sign font

theverge.com

76 pointsTomte29 comments

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_Pape... [2]https://books.google.com/books?id=iFCZ53i5XXgC&pg=PA126&hl=e...

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.

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.

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.

The original source has slightly more information: https://www.transportation.gov/fastlane/fonts-and-highway-sa...

“After more than a decade of analysis, we learned that retro-reflective sign sheeting materials that direct a vehicle’s headlamp beams back to the observer were the primary determining factor in improved nighttime visibility and legibility.”

I love when decades of research give the completely logical result.

It seems they found it was actually less legible than the old ones - especially in the inverted color scheme some signs use.

The previous tests were brand new Clearview signs beating old-and-faded classic signs -- which seems like an unbelievably embarrassing mistake.

Perhaps I'm more forgiving, but it seems easy for someone just thinking "It seems more clear to me, but how do I know for sure? Oh! I'll put them up on a road and see if the accident rates change!".

Only when someone points out to me that the signs they are replacing are probably not new would it become "obvious". (In fact, while I read my first article on this, my internal thought was 'so why isn't this better if it tested so well?', then they mentioned the old signs, and my thought was 'oh, right, that makes sense'.

So embarrassing mistake? No doubt. Unbelievably embarrassing mistake? No way, not with the sadly believable mistakes I've made in the past.

Well presumably it's not your job to do that sort of thing, but it becomes a bit more embarrassing when it is.

But wouldn't you do A/B tests in a driver lab first before going out into the wild with the fonts?

Yes, but that could still generate in a positive result for the new font that wouldn't be seen in the real world over a long period of time. The simple fact that the new font is new could result in an improvement that wouldn't necessary last in the real world. Hence why the font is being retired after a decade of experience and data in a proper situation.

A/B testing is notoriously hard to do well, especially if you're comparing something the user already knows well with something different. Controlling for familiarity is pretty much impossible.

Disagree. Very embarrassing mistake. Also very embarrassing that this wasn't caught by whoever signed off on replacing signs (but not surprising, I doubt those studies are read in detail often and people probably only browse the intro and conclusions).

Basically a "you failed science 101" level of embarrassment mistake in my estimation. Testing two brand new signs with the different fonts should be a fairly obvious first idea. The hard/interesting part is taking into account learning effects for the previous font. There's a pretty interesting research question in how you'd age signs in there as well (as you want to know if the gains are positive over the entire lifetime of the sign) and some interesting ethics questions about field testing.

> It seems more clear to me, but how do I know for sure? Oh! I'll put them up on a road and see if the accident rates change!".

Meh. The American way would be "Build a street for font, and see which one people are willing to pay more for"

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_Pape... [2]http://www.terminaldesign.com/web-fonts/ [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_(typeface) [4]https://twitter.com/TerminalDesign/status/693173610538799105

[5]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.)

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.

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)

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.

"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...

Exactly this. Obligatory https://xkcd.com/432/.

The UK (and some other countries) mostly use a font called Transport:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_(typeface)

I've always found it supremely clear and much less fussy than the US highway font, although I bet that's because I grew up with it. (There's something about the spacing of the letters on US signs that looks really odd to me, which I can't quite put my finger on.)

I'm sure they'd let the US use it if you asked nicely...

Recently there was a 'Ask HN: Ideas for Passive Income'. To add to the list - design a font.

To me the idea that the highways agencies and other departments choose to use paid for fonts is a bit silly. It is like choosing to pay for air and then insisting that anyone you talk to also pays for air (prosecuting them if they do not). This seems culturally wrong for the U.S. government where things like NASA images or NOAA weather data is free to use.

Good. Highway Gothic is way more legible anyways. Plus it has that classic US feeling to it.

Clearview, on top of being harder to spell out, had lost all the personality Highway Gothic had, imo.

Discussed recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10985709

Pretty sorry execution of the usability tests I'd say. Isn't quality of the sign one of the most obvious factors to consider? I wonder if they only tested in perfect weather conditions, too.

I guess I get a decent example for confounding variables for our intro material out of this so there's that.

With clever cars, road sign legibility won't be an issue for much longer :)

> 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.

It turns out that all those blog posts suggesting the rewrite might be more performant was more due to the fact that older, spaghetti code was being replaced with nice, fresh, clean code which was, naturally, better structured.

So, refactoring is a good idea?

I guess, but not really my point. All the projects that go through massive rewrites to port into another language always seem to attribute the gains they inevitably find to the new language and not to the fact that they completely restructured the code in full view of what a completed version already looked like. Very much a pilot sytem result [1].

I know there are plenty of rewritten projects that truly benefited from a language better fitted to the domain, but rewriting itself will usually produce better code. The argument against refactoring would be that the better code isn't often worth it when you're not changing languages.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month#The_p...

Edit: I submitted accidentally.

I could swear there was a post just in the last month on HN that with a title of something like "Massive gains from rewriting our C++ project in... C++"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com