What font is most visible at a distance? Is it plain old Ariel? Do
serifs make characters more distinguishable? Let's say you're
making a sign for the side of a road facing oncoming traffic. What font
would be the best to use if quick readability was the only concern?

I'm sure fonts have the roughly the same readability level across
different languages, but to keep it simple, I'm only concerned with
the readability of English words.
-- 
   (||)   Nehmo   (||)

Nehmo wrote:
> What font is most visible at a distance? Is it plain old Ariel? Do
> serifs make characters more distinguishable? Let's say you're
> making a sign for the side of a road facing oncoming traffic. What font
> would be the best to use if quick readability was the only concern?

New Times Wingding.

W

Nehmo wrote:
> What font is most visible at a distance? Is it plain old Ariel? Do
> serifs make characters more distinguishable? Let's say you're
> making a sign for the side of a road facing oncoming traffic. What font
> would be the best to use if quick readability was the only concern?
> 
> I'm sure fonts have the roughly the same readability level across
> different languages, but to keep it simple, I'm only concerned with
> the readability of English words.


There are fonts specifically designed for highway signage, such as 
Interstate. Is that what you mean, or are you designing commercial 
signage that needs to be sufficiently different from state signage to 
avoid confusion? In that case, any of the Swiss-style sans serifs 
(Helvetica, Univers, Frutiger) would work, as would any of a thousand 
other fonts. The keys to legibility in that environment are adequate and 
well proportioned letterspacing (you want even color--avoid tight 
spacing that causes sans-serifs to develop a beat of bunched-up vertical 
stems); good color contrast under all lighting and weather conditions; 
large enough sizes to be read from a distance at speed; and low word 
count. A billboard with more than seven or eight words, for instance, is 
demonstrably less effective than one with fewer words and may be a 
driver distraction hazard as well.

HTH,

Dick
http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/

Dick Margulis wrote:
> Nehmo wrote:
> 
>> What font is most visible at a distance? Is it plain old Ariel? Do
>> serifs make characters more distinguishable? Let's say you're
>> making a sign for the side of a road facing oncoming traffic. What font
>> would be the best to use if quick readability was the only concern?
>>
>> I'm sure fonts have the roughly the same readability level across
>> different languages, but to keep it simple, I'm only concerned with
>> the readability of English words.
> 
> <snip> The keys to legibility in that environment are [...] 
 > good color contrast under all lighting and weather conditions;
> [...] and low word count. [...]

that "good color contrast" is odd -- I have seen it stated that 
black-on-white gives the best contrast in print, followed by 
white-on-black and black on yellow (though not everybody agrees)

black and yellow are much used for hazard signs in industrial 
environments, but for road signs (and I wish I could find the URL)
the prize for legibility recently went to white-on-blue

I should add that the "white" is actually reflective, so that may 
account for the unexpected result, and the pale blue backgound probably 
helps the sign stand out against the vegetation (a very necessary 
consideration in a country where environmental protection laws prohibit 
local authorities from trimming back trees to reveal half-hidden road signs)

and while a "low word count" is clearly desirable, there are times when 
I wish for more words -- trying to parse a 32-character German 
agglutination into its constituent parts, while hammering down the fast 
lane of the autobahn, is not an experience I want to repeat too often

regards   . . .   /phil

phil chastney wrote:

> Dick Margulis wrote:
> 
>> Nehmo wrote:
>>
>>> What font is most visible at a distance? Is it plain old Ariel? Do
>>> serifs make characters more distinguishable? Let's say you're
>>> making a sign for the side of a road facing oncoming traffic. What font
>>> would be the best to use if quick readability was the only concern?
>>>
>>> I'm sure fonts have the roughly the same readability level across
>>> different languages, but to keep it simple, I'm only concerned with
>>> the readability of English words.
>>
>>
>> <snip> The keys to legibility in that environment are [...] 
> 
>  > good color contrast under all lighting and weather conditions;
> 
>> [...] and low word count. [...]
> 
> 
> that "good color contrast" is odd -- I have seen it stated that 
> black-on-white gives the best contrast in print, followed by 
> white-on-black and black on yellow (though not everybody agrees)
> 
> black and yellow are much used for hazard signs in industrial 
> environments, but for road signs (and I wish I could find the URL)
> the prize for legibility recently went to white-on-blue

I'm not surprised.  Back in the day, I'd set my computer monitor for
that combination.  It's quite legible, and very easy on the eyes.
Around here they use it for H[ospital] signs, an important director to
be able to see and assimilate quickly.

--Jeff

-- 
Justice will not be served until those
who are unaffected are as outraged
as those who are. -Benjamin Franklin

Dick Margulis wrote:
> Nehmo wrote:
> > What font is most visible at a distance? Is it plain old Ariel? Do
> > serifs make characters more distinguishable? Let's say you're
> > making a sign for the side of a road facing oncoming traffic. What font
> > would be the best to use if quick readability was the only concern?
> >
> > I'm sure fonts have the roughly the same readability level across
> > different languages, but to keep it simple, I'm only concerned with
> > the readability of English words.
>
>
> There are fonts specifically designed for highway signage, such as
> Interstate.

The British road sign "transport" font was chosen after much
deliberation, and it is downloadable here:

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/media/fonts/



> 
> HTH,
> 
> Dick
> http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/

Nehmo wrote:

> What font is most visible at a distance? Is it plain old Ariel? Do
> serifs make characters more distinguishable? Let's say you're
> making a sign for the side of a road facing oncoming traffic. What font
> would be the best to use if quick readability was the only concern?
> 
> I'm sure fonts have the roughly the same readability level across
> different languages, but to keep it simple, I'm only concerned with
> the readability of English words.

 From the replies so far, I think you have your answer: sans-serif for 
large print; serif for small.

-- 
Rob Bannister

Dick Margulis wrote:
> Nehmo wrote:
> > What font is most visible at a distance? Is it plain old Ariel? Do
> > serifs make characters more distinguishable? Let's say you're
> > making a sign for the side of a road facing oncoming traffic. What font
> > would be the best to use if quick readability was the only concern?
>
> There are fonts specifically designed for highway signage, such as
> Interstate.

Actually, Interstate is an expensive stylistic imitation of the FHWA
typeface used on most US roadsigns.  It has the advantage of many
weights, which is good if you're laying out a magazine cover (a context
in which Interstate is popular) but there is a more utilitarian (and
cheaper) alternative.

http://www.triskele.com/fonts.html provides freeware downloads of the
actual lettering used on highway signage.  Choose from among those
fonts based on the needed width of the lettering and your own aesthetic
choice.  In the case of Series *B versus Series *W, if you choose to
use that family (called Clearview, a newer alternative to FHWA used
mostly in Michigan and Texas) *B is intended for dark text on a light
background and *W is intended for light text on a dark background.

--
Vid the Kid

On 30 Jul 2006 17:45:09 -0700, Nehmo wrote:

> What font is most visible at a distance? Is it plain old Ariel? Do
> serifs make characters more distinguishable? Let's say you're
> making a sign for the side of a road facing oncoming traffic. What font
> would be the best to use if quick readability was the only concern?
> 
> I'm sure fonts have the roughly the same readability level across
> different languages, but to keep it simple, I'm only concerned with
> the readability of English words.

Of the commonly available fonts, use Verdana.

"Identity Number Forty-Seven" <identity@number.47> wrote:
>=20
> > What font is most visible at a distance? Is it plain old Ariel? Do
> > serifs make characters more distinguishable? Let's say you're
> > making a sign for the side of a road facing oncoming traffic. What =
font
> > would be the best to use if quick readability was the only concern?
> >=20
> > I'm sure fonts have the roughly the same readability level across
> > different languages, but to keep it simple, I'm only concerned with
> > the readability of English words.
>=20
> Of the commonly available fonts, use Verdana.

Why?

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Identity Number Forty-Seven wrote:

> Of the commonly available fonts, use Verdana.

For your own purposes, you can do what you like; but please, not on 
the web, not at the moment.  See Poley's oft-cited discussion at

   http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

CSS/2.0 had the makings of a remedy for this problem 
(font-size-adjust), but hardly anyone implemented it, so it was 
taken out of CSS/2.1.

It might however re-appear (in an improved form, I hope) as CSS3 is
developed.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:01:53 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Identity Number Forty-Seven wrote:
>
>> Of the commonly available fonts, use Verdana.
>
>For your own purposes, you can do what you like; but please, not on 
>the web, not at the moment.  See Poley's oft-cited discussion at

Since the question was about road signage, this isn't terribly
relevant.

But while we're rambling off topic, I often use Verdana when making
subtitles or menus for DVDs, seems good for relatively fuzzy TV
screens. 




-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:01:53 +0100, Alan J. Flavell wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Identity Number Forty-Seven wrote:
> 
>> Of the commonly available fonts, use Verdana.
> 
> For your own purposes, you can do what you like; but please, not on 
> the web, not at the moment.  See Poley's oft-cited discussion at
> 
>    http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

Web authors that specify fonts in their web pages generally don't
achieve the result they expect.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:36:14 +0200, Andreas H�feld wrote:

>> Of the commonly available fonts, use Verdana.
> 
> Why?

When selecting from other "commonly available" (that is, free) MS
fonts such as Arial, Comic Sans, Courier New, Georgia, Impact,
Trebuchet, and Times New Roman.

"Identity Number Forty-Seven" <identity@number.47>   wrote:
>=20
> >> Of the commonly available fonts, use Verdana.
> >=20
> > Why?
>=20
> When selecting from other "commonly available" (that is, free) MS
> fonts such as Arial, Comic Sans, Courier New, Georgia, Impact,
> Trebuchet, and Times New Roman.

You understand the word "why"?

The OP asked about a font for distance viewing and signage.
Verdana was designed for on-screen display:

>>The Verdana typeface family was designed specifically to address=20
the challenges of on-screen display. Designed by world renowned type=20
designer Matthew Carter, and hand-instructed by leading hinting expert,=20
Monotype's Tom Rickner, these sans serif fonts are unique examples of=20
type design for the computer screen.<<

I don't think good hinting has anything to do with the readability
of traffic signs.

Blessed are the clueless who have the courage to be silent.

"Identity Number Forty-Seven" <identity@number.47> wrote:
>=20
> > On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Identity Number Forty-Seven wrote:
> >=20
> >> Of the commonly available fonts, use Verdana.
> >=20
> > For your own purposes, you can do what you like; but please, not on=20
> > the web, not at the moment.  See Poley's oft-cited discussion at
> >=20
> >    http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
>=20
> Web authors that specify fonts in their web pages generally don't
> achieve the result they expect.

Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses.

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 23:58:34 +0200, Andreas H�feld wrote:

> Blessed are the clueless who have the courage to be silent.

Andreas, your sense of humor escapes most people.

"Identity Number Forty-Seven" <identity@number.47> wrote:
>=20
> > Blessed are the clueless who have the courage to be silent.
>=20
> Andreas, your sense of humor escapes most people.

You're not "most people" I'm afraid. The fact that you, once
more, don't get it does not say anything about others.

Alan J. Flavell <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Identity Number Forty-Seven wrote:
> 
> > Of the commonly available fonts, use Verdana.
> 
> For your own purposes, you can do what you like; but please, not on 
> the web, not at the moment.  See Poley's oft-cited discussion at
> 
>    http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

I don´t get that argument. IMHO it is a straw man. 
What do I care if Verdana is a bit larger than other
fonts on the screen, as long as it is very legible
(and Verdana is, at any size)?

/ralph -- I`d prefer 14"pt" Verdana for onscreen use
          over 12pt Times New Roman or Comic Sans any day.
-- 
Rettet die Wale und stürzt das System, und trennt euren Müll, 
denn viel Mist ist nicht schön!"
                                    Gustav, "Rettet die Wale"

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Alan wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:01:53 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
> <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Identity Number Forty-Seven wrote:
> >
> >> Of the commonly available fonts, use Verdana.
> >
> >For your own purposes, you can do what you like; but please, not on 
> >the web, not at the moment.  See Poley's oft-cited discussion at
> 
> Since the question was about road signage, this isn't terribly
> relevant.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.  I was trying to say that I had no 
particular opinion on the use of Verdana for the O.P's own purposes 
(in this case: road signage).

But I felt it worth mentioning the problem with its use on the web, 
since it seems to be remarkably widespread.

This is usenet: you're fully entitled to disagree, but there's
nothing to be gained by starting a long meta-thread about whether
it was on-topic for the question or for the group, so I'll depart 
calmly.

-- 
adsum - 'ad enough - absum.

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 11:17:37 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Aichinger wrote:

> I don�t get that argument. IMHO it is a straw man. 
> What do I care if Verdana is a bit larger than other
> fonts on the screen, as long as it is very legible
> (and Verdana is, at any size)?
> 
> /ralph -- I`d prefer 14"pt" Verdana for onscreen use
>           over 12pt Times New Roman or Comic Sans any day.

Thank you, Ralph.  That's exactly the point.

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Ralph Aichinger wrote:

> I don�t get that argument. IMHO it is a straw man. 

Straw man, eh?  That would be the misattributed easy-to-refute 
argument set up by our opponents, in the hope of avoiding having to 
deal with the real problem. Seems that I agree with what you said - 
yes, our opponents have shown themselves masters of setting up 
straw-man parodies - but maybe not with what you meant.

> /ralph -- I`d prefer 14"pt" Verdana for onscreen use
>           over 12pt Times New Roman or Comic Sans any day.

Hardly any web browsers conform to specifications when given font 
sizes in pt units.

Alan J. Flavell <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
> Straw man, eh?  That would be the misattributed easy-to-refute 
> argument set up by our opponents, in the hope of avoiding having to 
> deal with the real problem. Seems that I agree with what you said - 
> yes, our opponents have shown themselves masters of setting up 
> straw-man parodies - but maybe not with what you meant.

I don´t know who you see as the "opponent", but for me
the Argument "Verdana is larger than Times New Roman, therefore
it is less readable" not very convincing. And everything else in
the text posted was deduced from this, as far as I can tell.

Even by itself I don´t buy it, but if you consider that the resolution
of common display types and standard font sizes in different operating
systems vary wildly (Windows with standard fonts on a 150dpi panel 
looks completely different from my Linux installation with its 96dpi
default and Freetype auto-hinter on a large CRT). So saying "Verdana
is too large" does not make too much sense. Maybe it is, maybe it
is not, we will never know what the user in front of the screen
prefers. It is stupid to be obsessed by a 25 percent size difference,
if the font has other strengths (and I think we don´t have to
argue that Verdana *is* readable if sized reasonably).

> Hardly any web browsers conform to specifications when given font 
> sizes in pt units.

Neither did I suggest so, nor does it matter. Verdana at any reasonable
size is more readable onscreen than Times New Roman or some of
the other common alternatives, at least for me and *many* others,
e.g.
http://www.scribe.com.au/tip-w019.html
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=78569
http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.asp?p=32057&seqNum=7&rl=1

/ralph
-- 
Rettet die Wale und stürzt das System, und trennt euren Müll, 
denn viel Mist ist nicht schön!"
                                    Gustav, "Rettet die Wale"

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Ralph Aichinger wrote:

> I don�t know

Indeed! Before posting to comp.fonts, you are required to know the
difference between an [ASCII] apostrophe ('), an acute accent (�),
and a grave accent (`).
 http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/apostrophe.html
 http://www.moosburg.org/design/apo.html

-- 
Jetzt �berall in Deutschland: Akzente des Grauen�s

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Ralph Aichinger wrote:

> So saying "Verdana is too large" does not make too much sense.

Verdana itself is not a problem.
Verdana as a reader's preferred typeface is not a problem.

The problem is that *almost always* authors specify

   font-size: 80%

when they specify Verdana as typeface. When the text is not
displayed in Verdana (because Verdana is not available as on
my system, or because document-specific typefaces are disabled,
or whatever) then the text becomes almost unreadable.

Recent bad example:
 http://jendryschik.de/wsdev/einfuehrung/
 http://jendryschik.de/stylesheets/default.css
:-(

-- 
Jetzt �berall in Deutschland und �sterreich: Akzente des Grauen�s

Andreas Prilop <nhtcapri@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
> Indeed! Before posting to comp.fonts, you are required to know the
> difference between an [ASCII] apostrophe ('), an acute accent (´),
> and a grave accent (`).
>  http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/apostrophe.html
>  http://www.moosburg.org/design/apo.html

Well tell that to the misconfigured Apple USB Keyboard I typed
this on. Apostrophe would not work at all, acute and grave worked
as dead keys, badly. If that is the best argument against Verdana,
it won't convince me.

/ralph -- don't be silly, Andreas!
-- 
Rettet die Wale und stürzt das System, und trennt euren Müll, 
denn viel Mist ist nicht schön!"
                                    Gustav, "Rettet die Wale"

Andreas Prilop <nhtcapri@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
> The problem is that *almost always* authors specify
> 
>    font-size: 80%
> 
> when they specify Verdana as typeface. When the text is not
> displayed in Verdana (because Verdana is not available as on
> my system, or because document-specific typefaces are disabled,
> or whatever) then the text becomes almost unreadable.

IIRC that was not the starting point of this discussion (Verdana
was brushed away as a very readable font, without making that 
very important qualitfication).

And, surprise, surprise: *almost always* there is Verdana 
installed (i read of 98% of all computers).
> 
> Recent bad example:
>  http://jendryschik.de/wsdev/einfuehrung/

Looks very readable to me. I'm sure you could construct
pathological examples of browser configurations where 
it was not -- but you could do that with almost any
web feature.

/ralph
-- 
Rettet die Wale und stürzt das System, und trennt euren Müll, 
denn viel Mist ist nicht schön!"
                                    Gustav, "Rettet die Wale"