
The Design of a Signage Typeface - dko
http://ilovetypography.com/2012/04/19/the-design-of-a-signage-typeface/
======
njs12345
I find the end result pretty attractive, and it's definitely distinctive -
perhaps it could have wider applications than just signage:
<http://fonts.info/pub/pdf/wayfinding-sans-pro.pdf>

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
I wonder how it looks when rendered at very small sizes on computer screens?
It might be surprisingly legible...

------
twelvechairs
Great post. Very interesting work.

My picky question is - why so thin? The 'blurred' examples show the font
broadening through the 'blur', which is why thinner fonts work well here, but
is there a scientific basis for this? I would assume that this is good for
light text on a dark background. For the opposite, I'd assume a thicker font
would do better (text would become 'thinner' as your eyes blur?). Also, if
there is any damage/weathering of the sign, Id assume a thicker font would
cope with this better.

~~~
Danieru
Lettering and the a sign's border are often made out of reflective material.

The blurring will thus occur at night when car's headlamps illuminate the
signage.

------
tompagenet2
The typeface 'Transport' used in the UK seems to have solved most of the
problems identified in this article. The article notes how good Transport is,
but says it is too wide. I wonder if just reducing the spacing on Transport a
little would have been a shortcut - the results appear remarkably similar to
my eye.

Wikipedia article on Transport:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_%28typeface%29>

------
MaxGabriel
The market for fonts is nuts. You can buy one style of Wayfinding Sans for
$374.50--or all twenty for _$374.50._

~~~
zach
Sounds like the foundry has an all-or-nothing philosophy of font pricing, even
if the marketplace their fonts are found on doesn't quite support it.

To understand this perspective, don't miss the bottom of the House Industries
FAQ page:

<http://www.houseind.com/fonts/faq/generalfaq>

------
moonboots
I like the article, but the fat, fixed header is killing an otherwise great
design. Making the header absolute (not stick to the top of the window) would
leave more vertical screen space for the crisp graphics and typeface.

~~~
Gring
I agree 100%. Also, the page down key doesn't work correctly anymore: It
scrolls too much. For me, the lacking page-down-usability is enough that I
would never even consider placing a fixed bar on top or bottom.

------
jonespen
Great article.

"Once I even ended up in a holding cell at the border crossing to Norway,
because the customs officers just wouldn’t accept that someone would drive all
over Europe simply to take photographs of traffic signs."

Would love to hear more about this :)

------
wippler
great blog.. i love how each article has a different layout emphasizing the
content.

~~~
kzrdude
Nice observation. It's very pleasant to read it all.

------
bhauer
Only have just skimmed it, but this is a great blog entry, more of an article
really. Slick graphic design as well.

Will have to come back later to re-read.

~~~
politician
The PDF specimen linked at the end is also worth a look.

------
timc3
Very inspired by his love and devotion to his craft.

------
justinph
This article is terribly difficult to follow the flow of text. I've never
understood the desire of some designers for columns of text on the web. Web
pages are infinitely tall. Why would you want to replicate a restriction of
old media on a new one? This implementation is proof that it's not a usability
win.

~~~
sdoering
Well using Chrome on Ubuntu with a resolution of 1366x768, I really had a
problem, reading this post.

The words were cut at the end of a column, so that it was really impossible to
follow the article.

for someone stating "I love typography", this usability-problem, kind of seems
like anathema to me.

Or am I just the outlier with the wrong screen-resolution?

~~~
justincormack
same here, also Chrome on Ubuntu, different screen resolution.

Text in columns is a really bad idea.

