On 2013-02-17, Philippe Verdy <[email protected]> wrote: > I was not citing empirical results but things that are regulated by > legislation.
No you weren't - you were making explicit claims that lowercase is harder to read than capitals. You said nothing about regulation. > And your existing empirical results are just nfomal tests ignoring > important parts of the population of drivers, notably: Since you aren't even aware of the existence of these reports (the Anderson and Worboys reports in the UK, and equivalents in the US and Germany) , it's quite impressive that you know what's in them. As one can read, the recent enforced change in the U.S. to lower-case placenames on all signs is significantly driven by the increasing number of elderly drivers with poorer sight. The changes in the U.S. follow a program of research (for example by Philip Garvey, a psychologist of vision) commissioned by the agencies on how to make signs more readable for these drivers, amongst others. > compensated by sufficient contrast (lowercase letters do not contrast > enough, because their strokes are too near of each other) I think perhaps you should look at some letter forms, particularly in the typefaces used for traffic signs. > - the effect of presbytia on vision of aging population : here again > the size of letters does matter (look at those phones sold to ages Road signs are usually not in front of one's nose! > In all these cases, you need less density of strokes, and capital > letters are better constrasting. Could you point to anyone who has found this to be true in reality? -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
