Road Signs
How do you feel about san serif vs. serifs? My question is this: if most believe serifs are easier to read than why are road signs not using them?
posted by Karen @ 8:08 AM
Monday, February 04, 2008
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Illuminated Manuscript
- Helvetica
- Welcome Type 3 Fall 2007!
- Closed
- ART BATTLE!!!
- Typographic Goodness
- question
- wrath
- just in case...
- Cell Phone Fonts
13 Comments:
i think that most serif fonts are easier to read in publications such as magazines or newspapers.
because road signs have to be so large the typography has to be clear and consise. if road signs were designed with serif fonts i think that the serifs would become a distraction or make the fonts more "blurred" from far away
could it be the simplicity and easier readability at even small sizes and distances that sans serifs are used more in road signs.
does the amount of more white space have anything to do w/ it being used?
I agree with the comment above. Signs of that much importance need to be straight to the point. They need to be crystal clear not only because of their size but also because they are only seen for about 3-5 seconds at a time. Having serifs on informational signs while on the road would only cause distractions, confusion and blurring for drivers.
Not only is there the legibility to consider but also possibly the voice as well. For a road sign it must convey authority and boldness. Serifs have a quieter less brash style, while sans knows how to get it done in the most direct manner. Personally I do not have a preference serif vs sans, there is a time to be bold and a time to be classy.
i also agree. plus sans serifs and serifs have an "attitude" so to speak. serif fonts are warm and inviting while sans serifs generally give off a more efficient, business-like appeal which is perfect for informational signs.
I always thought readability was based on size.. dang. I think serifs are more readable in a large body of time because they suggest a flow from letter to letter.
all the points that have already been made are really good.
in large bodies of type, serifs allow for the flow of words. but at a quick glance we need something bold and simple to convey important messages.
good post Karen.
Slide Show!
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/08/12/magazine/20070812_CLEARVIEW_index.html
I agree with the comments already mentioned above. Depending on what is being designed, depends on which you use but just to say which you like in general I personally like san serif...
I know that the British transportation system employed Kinneir Calvert to build the typoraphic system for its road signs, and that there was much research done to determine the tracking and the typeface chosen because of legibility from a distance and at speed. I do agree with k.deyoung about the legibility for large bodies of type being more readable when set in serif type, but for smaller bodies or headlines such as in the case of road signs, sans serif is quite legible as well.
All very good point here. I did any one notice that when you are typing your blog it is in a serif but when it is posted it is a san serif?
Personally i think that san serifs are easier to read all around. Weather it books or out door boards.(depending on the typeface and size if it is too condensed it could make things difficult.)
It is a world of Helvetica not Bernhard.
Jason that slide show is really interesting. Thanks.
i know i am probably repeating what everyone has already said but it seems like serif fonts would merge together from a distance. The negative space seems to add more clarity to the words...which is kind of the point of directional road signs.
Post a Comment
<< Home