Fascinating!
At first, the two examples on the first page looked identical to me. Then I read all six pages of the article and came back to look at them again. What an amazingly subtle, but undeniable improvement.
It really is a pretty font. I look forward to seeing the changes.
I'm actually a bit disappointed, because right now my state is in the process of finishing up the largest, longest-running and most expensive highway project in its history, which runs right by my house. They're already putting the signs up, and though I'll have to double-check to be sure, I don't think they've instituted the new font, which means likely a long wait before they do.
Let me try that again, without beer.
I don't really care what font this sign is in, I just wish I could find the road.
I just came on to say that I am most probably in the minority here. I find the new signs less clear and legible. The letters are not spaced apart enough I think. I also don't like the little swoops at the bottom of the letters. I find them annoying and gratuitous, not in fact helpful for me. I don't want "pretty", when I'm panicking in the middle of some strange land, at some serious junction, late for something. I want blocky and bold, and apparently old. However, I'm quite sure I'll get over it.
I'm with rottenrob. I don't like the new font. But I don't live in the States so I guess it doesn't matter.
As a former long-time computer typographer who tends to be hyperaware of font usage, I found this post absolutely fascinating and the responses equally so. For example, the "little swoops at the bottom of the letters," which some may find irritating, are clearly a way of differentiating certain characters which can be confusingly redundant using the older face, i.e. I, l, and 1. With a serif face, lettershapes distinguished such characters; the "little swoops" now accomplish the same thing. Long distance legibility poses challenges for a type designer (having worked with large format materials I can definitely attest to that) and it's interesting to see how that issue has been dealt with using such tricks. The main difference between Highway Gothic and Clearview appears to be that Clearview has a much larger x-height, so that small-case letters now occupy more space relative to capitals, and the letters are packed more closely together, so that open space now appears within the letters instead of between them. That explains the "lightness" referred to by the article author.
The explosion of desktop publishing has meant that folks with no background in type are now designing with it in horrifying ways (just this morning I saw an ad with an all-capital script headline; I nearly lost my breakfast). An article like this is a pleasant reminder that sometimes design really does matter.
Good find, swbm.
I recognize that the new font works better, but I like the old one because I'm curmudgeonly on aesthetic grounds.
Interesting article, but I never found anything which explained how Hellertown and Bethlehem moved a mile closer just by changing the font.
The subject of fonts and their characteristics and differences is fascinating.
Even more interesting to someone (me) whose enlightenment on this subject extends to the difference between serif and non-serif, are those people who are really, really into fonts.
I might notice rivers in a page or kerning gone wild, but basically leave it to the pros to make my reading experience seamless/painless/wart-free.
On the one hand, I admire the fine eye typographers have. And on the other, when font discussions come up, I want to yell...
NEEEEEEEEEERRRDS!
*is ashamed of self
Although I do like Ariel and Comic Sans.
So sue me.
I'm glad you posted this.
I will say I'll miss Highway Gothic, as not only does it have a fun name, it is a font that is inextricably tied to a past era of America, and the notion of seeing the country through road trips.
Also, while the article is interesting enough to stand on its own, I thought that the print version had one of the best layouts I've seen in a long, long time. It was neatly arranged, with plenty of relevant visuals, and a color-coded/numeric system linking the visuals to the article. It sounds super geeky, but it made it even more pleasant to read.
Slightly related tangent: I always wondered why more "adult" publications shied away from using layouts similar to "kids" books, as I remember being engrossed by Dorling Kindersley books as a child, and didn't see why serious publications had to completely forgo visuals in favor of straight text, even when they were almost called for. Visuals are still completely valid in my opinion, and in many ways can add to a text. This article was a reminder of what can be done, and I hope to see it used more often, in unexpected places.
Adult publications? I though pr0n was MOSTLY visuals.
If tax dollars paid to have these fonts produced, why can't I download them for free?
Damn. And I might conceivably some day have a need to make a street sign, too. grumble.
I finally remembered to check the new highway signs on the way home yesterday, and sure enough, they're using the new font. I have no idea why this makes me happy. It's sort of like when the new phonebooks show up.
because I'm curmudgeonlyon aesthetic grounds.