Fascinating. To my eye Clearview was, ah, clearly better. But I love the fact that they seem to have tested it. My typographic opinion literally means nothing if Clearview was not helping people drive more safely.
> Highway Gothic’s problems rested in the interstices (spaces) of its “a”, “e” and “u”, and when reading them at higher speed, these vowels would present more like an “o”. In addition, lower case letters like “i” and “l” were indistinguishable, with halation further heightened by the glare of headlights at night.
> ...
> But herein lies a mystery. In its Federal Register notice, the FHWA concluded that although Clearview worked well for white lettering on a dark background, it was ineffective on dark lettering on white background. Moreover, it determined that the “retroreflective” material used on freeway signs created more of a problem than did the font of choice when it came to nighttime readability. Finding no benefit that could be remedied by simply replacing older Highway Gothic font signage, the FHWA reversed course.
Tangentially related to Clearview/"Highway Gothic": the article writes "An attempt to update the 75 year old typeface resulted in the 2003 release of a new font named Clearview" - but then it shows some scans from the 1937 manual and the font is definitely _not_ Highway Gothic (the letters look much boxier, probably because they were designed to be painted by hand). So when was "Highway Gothic" actually introduced?
The feds are killing off Clearview, the new highway sign font - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11039770 (29 comments) -- https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/4/10919686/clearview-highway...
America's Sudden U-Turn on Highway Fonts - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10985709 (17 comments) -- http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/01/official-united-state...