Talk:Clearview (typeface)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Highways, a project which is dedicated to providing information about highways around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project’s importance scale.

[edit] Article

There was an article about in New York Times Magazine about Clearview. The article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/magazine/12fonts-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2 It will probably become subscriber only soon. Seano1 21:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, great article; it was referenced along with information added yesterday, as it was available online before its stated publication date. It would provide a good basis for a "history" or "development" section on the typeface, if someone is so inclined. -Agyle 00:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree that it was a good article, or a good reference citation. There are several other experts out there who can give a broader and more objective view of this topic that aren't quoted in the article. More critically, some of the quotes in the article, specifically the ones attributed to me, are taken out of context. After learning during the final editing that I had been quoted out of context, I specifically requested to be removed from the article. This request was denied by the Times editor, stating that the quotes provided "emotional resonance", even if taken out of context. RCMoeur 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The NYT Magazine article's summary of the development of the FHWA alphabet series is very broad-brush and inaccurate in some details. It is not strictly true, for example, that the FHWA alphabet series were developed by Caltrans in 1949-50, so I have reworded that sentence in the Wikipedia article. What actually happened is that the letterforms for FHWA Series A-F were developed by the Bureau of Public Roads during World War II. Draft versions of the typeface, with some glyphs different from those eventually published in 1945, were used for signs on the Pentagon road network. Later, the then California Division of Highways (now Caltrans) developed the two components of what is now FHWA Series E Modified separately, as part of its ongoing research into freeway guide signing. The uppercase letters were adapted from plain Series E by widening the stroke width to accommodate button reflectors; this new uppercase-only alphabet was meant for use on ground-mounted freeway guide signs which, at that time in California, had uppercase-only legend. The lowercase letters (whose origins remain obscure, at least to me, but which I think were probably adapted from shopfront gothic) were developed for mixed-case legend on overhead signs, which were externally illuminated and not, at that time, reflectorized. Initially the lowercase letters were matched with Series D rather than Series E Modified, the Series D letters having a height equal to half again the lowercase loop height (i.e., a 3:2 ratio), as opposed to a third again the lowercase loop height with Series E Modified (a 4:3 ratio). California Division of Highways documentation continued to show lowercase with Series D for mixed-case legend well into the 1950's, although the current practice of pairing the lowercase alphabet with Series E Modified became a national standard in 1958 with the publication of the AASHO Interstate signing manual. It is not until comparatively recently that it has become accepted as correct to use "Series E Modified" to refer to a full alphabet with both uppercase and lowercase letters--at first Series E Modified was just the uppercase letters while the lowercase letters were simply Lowercase. Argatlam 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a claim in the article's sidebar that the Series E Modified letterforms were invented by Ted Forbes of Caltrans. You might want to give FHWA Series fonts a look, that article probably has inaccuracies too. —Scott5114↗ 21:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Now fixed (I had put most of that information in the article's Talk page anyway, but hadn't had time to write it up properly before). By the way, "Ted Forbes" is Theodore W. Forbes. He was the dean of human factors researchers for about thirty years. In 1942 he developed a set of formulas which quantified the amount of information which could safely be put on a highway sign given the intrinsic legibility of the typeface used, in 1949-50 he was involved in the development of California's freeway guide signing standards, and in the late 1950's/early 1960's he assisted in the development of early VMS on the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan. In 1972 he published an important volume (now long out of print) on human factors. I don't know that he was ever called "Ted" to his face or, indeed, that he personally designed the lowercase alphabet used by Caltrans (and I don't think the author of the NYT article has information which addresses this point either). Argatlam 18:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I can sympathize with out-of-context quotes; a media staple! Good read anyway. -Agyle 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Too bad the Pennsylvania guide signs that they chose to illustrate the differences in the two fonts did not present an apples-to-apples comparison: who knows how many viewers of these pictures are going to think the Clearview panel is better just because its sheeting is newer, cleaner, and shinier, and was constructed from sheet, rather than extruded, aluminum (and therefore does not have the latter's faint horizontal lines). SixSix 16:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Font vs. typeface

I've met purists in the past who wince at using "font" and "typeface" interchangably (as a font can be an italic or bold instance of a typeface, I gather, in some contexts)...this article reads fine to my layperson ears, but if there is a wincing purist reading this, perhaps you could change "font" to "typeface" or "typeface" to "font" in instances where you think it makes sense. -Agyle 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)