Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-06/0-4984-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date EVALUATION OF THE CLEARVIEW FONT FOR NEGATIVE January 2006 CONTRAST TRAFFIC SIGNS Resubmitted: April 2006 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Andrew J. Holick, Susan T. Chrysler, Eun Sug Park, and Paul J. Carlson Report 0-4984-1 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project 0-4984 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2004–November 2005 P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Project Title: Evaluation of Clearview Font on Negative Contrast Signs URL: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4984-1.pdf 16. Abstract Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) sponsored research has shown that the Clearview font provides longer legibility distances than the Highway Gothic font Series E (Modified) when used on freeway guide signs with positive contrast of white letters on a dark background. Additional studies have shown that Clearview outperforms other versions of Highway Gothic fonts on other, smaller types of guide signs. These results have helped support the adoption of the Clearview font into the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Standard Highway Signs book. The Clearview font has been developed with two sets of fonts—one for positive contrast signs and another for negative contrast signs. Prior to this research project, there were no studies documenting the performance of the Clearview font for negative contrast signs such as those found in the regulatory and warning sign series. This research project evaluated the negative contrast Clearview font in black letters on fluorescent yellow, fluorescent orange, and white backgrounds. The researchers performed a laptop-based presentation survey and a closed-course field study. The laptop survey used static, in-context sign images to compare sign fonts. The field study was a dynamic recognition and legibility test using full-sized retroreflective signs during the day and at night. The field study compared the standard font to three treatments of the Clearview font. The results of this research project show that the Clearview font provides the same performance as the current FHWA font series for negative contrast traffic signs with the exception of the nighttime recognition. In this instance, the straight replacement of Clearview did not achieve similar recognition distances as the FHWA font series until the stroke width was increased to the next weight. The recognition distance provided by traffic signs can be considered one of the most critical measures of effectiveness when assessing sign performance. Therefore, because there were no statistically significant increases in recognition or legibility distances for any of the Clearview fonts tested, and because the results of the nighttime recognition analysis showed a decrease in recognition distance when the FHWA font was replaced with the Clearview font, the researchers recommend that TxDOT continue using the FHWA font series for negative contrast signs. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Clearview, Legibility, Recognition, Visibility, Negative No restrictions. This document is available to the public Contrast, Older Driver, Highway Sign Font through NTIS: National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 http://www.ntis.gov 19. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 130 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized EVALUATION OF THE CLEARVIEW FONT FOR NEGATIVE CONTRAST TRAFFIC SIGNS by Andrew J. Holick Assistant Transportation Researcher Texas Transportation Institute Susan T. Chrysler, Ph.D. Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute Eun Sug Park, Ph.D. Assistant Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute and Paul J. Carlson, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Research Engineer Division Head Texas Transportation Institute Report 0-4984-1 Project 0-4984 Project Title: Evaluation of Clearview Font on Negative Contrast Signs Performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration January 2006 Resubmitted: April 2006 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government and the State of Texas do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. The researcher in charge was Paul J. Carlson, Ph.D., P.E. (TX, #85402). v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was conducted in cooperation with TxDOT and FHWA. The researchers would like to thank the project coordinator, Lauren Gardũno of the TxDOT Odessa District, for providing guidance and expertise on this project. The authors would also like to thank the members of the TxDOT project monitoring committee for their assistance: • Brian Stanford, project director; • Greg Brinkmeyer; • Michael Chacon; • Charlie Wicker; and • Wade Odell. The researchers would also like to thank several Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) personnel for their invaluable help in completing this project: • Dick Zimmer, • Alicia Williams, • Amanda Anderle Fling, • Sara Meischen, • Chris Rountree, • Todd Hausman, and • Dan Walker. Finally, the authors would like to thank Don Meeker for his time and assistance. Mr. Meeker visited with the project team to identify critical experimental factors and develop an experimental plan for the research activities. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures............................................................................................................................. viii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................x Chapter 1: Background and Significance of Work ...................................................................1 Clearview Background.................................................................................................................1 Research Findings........................................................................................................................2 Chapter 2: Experimental Procedure...........................................................................................7 Fonts and Sign Design .................................................................................................................7 Existing Sign Analysis.............................................................................................................7 Experimental Signs ................................................................................................................12 Materials ....................................................................................................................................13 Field Study Method....................................................................................................................13 Participants.............................................................................................................................13 Experimental Vehicle.............................................................................................................14 Experimental Design..............................................................................................................15 Experimental Procedure.........................................................................................................21 Laptop Study Method ................................................................................................................24 Participants.............................................................................................................................25 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................25 Chapter 3: Experiment Results .................................................................................................29 Laptop Study..............................................................................................................................29 Field Study.................................................................................................................................30 Recognition Task ...................................................................................................................31 Legibility Task.......................................................................................................................32