LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for TYPO-L Archives


TYPO-L Archives

TYPO-L Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave TYPO-L
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: Re: "Type not fit for a greengrocer" (The Guardian on type, #2)
From: "Christopher R. Maden" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:Discussion of Type and Typographic Design <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Fri, 12 May 2000 06:29:16 +0000
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (26 lines)


On 8-05-2000, 18:43:02, Curtis Clark <[log in to unmask]> wrote
regarding Re: "Type not fit for a greengrocer" (The Guardian on type,
#2):
> California auto license plates switched from an unserifed to a serifed
"I"
> in the late 1980s. IMO there are some legibility issues (the serifs on
the
> "I" are almost as wide as the bar on the "T"), but it avoids confusing
"I"
> and "1".

This is something I've wondered about since a child, and it's entirely
possible that someone here might know the answer.

Given the legibility issues with license plates, especially under the
conditions present when accuracy in reading them quickly is most
important, do DMV databases typically avoid visual duplicates?  E.g.,
if IWON is taken, and I apply for the vanity plate 1WQN, will it be
marked as taken?  This seemed the obvious thing to me (at age 10 or
so), but I've never been able to confirm it.

-crism
--
"It's the same crap with a two on the front!"
        - Lewis Black on our glorious new age
<URL:http://www.shore.net/%7Ecrism/>

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main TYPO-L Page

Permalink



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager