原文传递
Evaluation of Guide Sign Fonts.
| 题名： | Evaluation of Guide Sign Fonts. |
| 作者： | Miles, J. D.; Kotwal, B.; Hammond, S.; Ye, F. |
| 关键词： | Overhead traffic signs, Signs and signals, Shoulder, Guide signs, E-modified, Enhanced e-modified, Clearview 5W, Ascender, Descender, Neutral, Night, Daylight, Legibility, Evaluation |
| 摘要： | Researchers at Texas A&M Transportation Institute completed a study of E-Modified, Enhanced E-Modified, and Clearview 5W for overhead and shoulder-mounted guide signs. The overhead guide signs consisted of three 6-letter, 16-inch tall font words stacked over each other at a standard spacing. The test word was on the middle line and had a leading uppercase letter followed by a combination of lowercase ascender and neutral letters, lowercase descender and neutral letters, or all lowercase neutral letters. The word on the top line was “Paying,” and the word on the lower line was “Likely.” These words were chosen such that the descender and ascender letters encroached on the test words to evaluate the impact of interline spacing. The shoulder-mounted signs consisted of two-digit numbers. Both the word and number legends were chosen to have similar footprints to minimize the likelihood of guessing based on recognition rather than legibility. Legibility distance data were recorded for each word read; however, the researchers completed the analysis based on the legibility index (LI), which is the legibility distance divided by the legend height. A detailed table of previous research is provided in LI values for cross comparison. Similar to previous research, there were mean LI values in some instances for Enhanced E-Modified and Clearview 5W that were larger than E-Modified; however, none of them were statistically significant. The only statistically significant differences reported were with respect to subject age (e.g., 18-35, and 65+) and day versus night, and at night within Clearview 5W with respect to legend type. The mean LI were 68.9 and 45.2 for 18-35 versus 65+ participants in the daytime condition, respectively, and 50.2 and 36.4 for 18-35 versus 65+ participants in the nighttime condition, respectively. It was shown that the cost to implement Clearview 5W would be more expensive than E-Modified, so it was recommended that future research focus on evaluating Clearview 5WR. |
| 报告类型： | 科技报告 |
相关文献
- Evaluation of the Clearview Font for Negative Contrast Traffic Signs.
- Overhead Guide Sign Retroreflectivity and Illumination.
- Temporary Large Guide Signs (REPT-0-6782-1).
- Guide Signing for Two-Lane Exits with an Option Lane: Evaluation of Human Factors.
- Clearview Font on Negative Contrast Traffic Signs: Summary Report.
- Overhead Guide Sign Retroreflectivity and Illumination, Technical Summary.
检索历史
应用推荐
