Impact of Sign Orientation on On-Premise Commercial Signs
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 131, Issue 1
Abstract
Storefront signs are often the end point of the information system travelers use to navigate the street and highway system to arrive at commercial destinations. To test the supposition that larger parallel signs would be as visible as smaller perpendicular signs, a variety of on-premise signs were tested under real-world conditions to determine their detectability and legibility. Using an open-field research design conducted on public roadways in a small downtown area and along a commercial strip development zone, 120 older and younger subjects viewed signs during both day and night conditions, with particular attention paid to sign orientation, operationally defined as parallel (i.e., being parallel to the roadway) versus perpendicular (i.e., being perpendicular to or facing oncoming traffic). Sign orientation was investigated by comparing perpendicular signs to parallel signs that were two and three times larger than the perpendicular signs with proportional increases in copy size. Contrary to most sign codes, the results indicate that perpendicular signs are significantly more detectible and legible than are larger parallel signs.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Chrysler, S., Stackhouse, S., Tranchida, D., and Arthur, E. (2001). “Improving street name sign legibility for older drivers.” Proc., Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, 1597–1601.
Claus, J. R., and Claus, K. (1975). Visual communication through signage Volume 2: Sign evaluation, Signs of the Times, Cincinnati.
Cooper, B. R. (1989). “A comparison of different ways of increasing traffic sign conspicuity.” TRRL Rep., 157.
Forbes, T. W., Fry, J. P., Joyce, R. P., and Pain, R. F. (1968). “Letter and sign contrast, brightness, and size effects on visibility.” Highw. Res. Rec., 216, 48–54.
Forbes, T. W., Moskowitz, K., and Morgan, G. (1950). “A comparison of lower case and capital letters for highway signs.” Proc. High. Res. Board, 30, 355–373.
Forbes, T. W., Saari, B. B., Greenwood, W. H., Goldblatt, J. G., and Hill, T. E. (1976). “Luminance and contrast requirements for legibility and visibility of highway signs.” Transportation Research Record 562 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 59–72.
Garvey, P. M., and Kuhn, B. T. (2003). “Traffic sign visibility.” Transportation Engineers’ Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Garvey, P. M., Zineddin, A. Z., and Pietrucha, M. T. (2001). “Letter legibility for signs and other large format applications.” Proc., Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, Calif., 1443–1447.
Hanson, D. R., and Woltman, H. L. (1967). “Sign backgrounds and angular position.” Highw. Res. Rec., 170, 82–96.
Hawkins, H. G., Picha, D. L., Wooldridge, M. D., Greene, F. K., and Brinkmeyer, G. R. (1999). “Performance comparison of three freeway guide sign alphabets.” Presented at The Transportation Research Board’s 78th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
Jenkins, S. E., and Cole, B. L. (1986). “Daytime conspicuity of road traffic control.” Transportation Research Record 1093, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 74–80.
Kuhn, B. T., Garvey, P. M., and Pietrucha, M. T. (1997). “Model guidelines for visibility of on-premise advertisement signs.” Transportation Research Record 1605, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 80–87.
Kuntz, J. E., and Sleight, R. B. (1950). “Legibility of numerals: The optimal ratio of height to width of stroke.” Am. J. Psychol., 63, 567–575.
Mace, D. J., Garvey, P. M., and Heckard, R. F. (1994). “Relative visibility of increased legend size vs. brighter materials for traffic signs.” FHWA-RD-94-035, Rep., Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Mace, D., Perchonok, K., and Pollack, L. (1982). “Traffic signs in complex visual environments.” FHWA-RD-82-102, Rep., Washington, D.C., FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Mace, D. J., and Pollack, L. (1983). “Visual complexity and sign brightness in detection and recognition of traffic signs.” Transportation Research Record 904, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 33–41.
McNees, R. W., and Jones, H. D. (1987). “Legibility of freeway guide signs as determined by sign materials.” Transportation Research Record 1149, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 22–31.
Pain, R. F. (1969). “Brightness and brightness ratio as factors in the attention value of highway signs.” Highw. Res. Rec., 275, 32–40.
Upchurch, J. E., and Armstrong, J. D. (1992). “A human factors evaluation of alternative variable message sign technologies.” Vehicle navigation and information systems, Norwegian Society of Chartered Engineers, Oslo, Norway, 262–267.
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). (2002). Standard highway signs: As specified in the MUTCD millennium edition, Federal Highway Administration, ⟨http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/⟩.
Zwahlen, H. T., and Yu, J. (1991). “Color and shape recognition of reflectorized targets under automobile low-beam illumination at night.” Transportation Research Record 1327, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1–7.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 131 • Issue 1 • January 2005
Pages: 11 - 17
Copyright
© 2005 ASCE.
History
Received: Apr 17, 2003
Accepted: Mar 1, 2004
Published online: Jan 1, 2005
Published in print: Jan 2005
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.