<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bob Noorda, transit sign designer, dies at 82</title>
	<atom:link href="http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/01/25/bob-noorda-transit-sign-designer-dies-at-82/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/01/25/bob-noorda-transit-sign-designer-dies-at-82/</link>
	<description>A New York City Subway Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 04:42:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Jaystreet</title>
		<link>http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/01/25/bob-noorda-transit-sign-designer-dies-at-82/#comment-70688</link>
		<dc:creator>Jaystreet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:35:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=4899#comment-70688</guid>
		<description>Unimark used Helvetica in the designs, but the TA&#039;s sign shop did the actual signmaking, and didn&#039;t want to buy the Helvetica typeset. So they went with Akzidenz Grotesk instead. As mentioned in other comments, they&#039;ve switched over to Helvetica in recent years. 

The signage sketches shown in the article actually show Akzidenz Grotesk, which wasn&#039;t what Unimark spec&#039;ed. 

I&#039;ve also read that the &quot;line&quot; above the text in every sign was actually drawn in sketches to specify where the signs were attached - Unimark designed the signs to be modular, so they could be changed when service changed. The TA&#039;s signmakers mistook the joint in the sign as an actual graphic line.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unimark used Helvetica in the designs, but the TA&#8217;s sign shop did the actual signmaking, and didn&#8217;t want to buy the Helvetica typeset. So they went with Akzidenz Grotesk instead. As mentioned in other comments, they&#8217;ve switched over to Helvetica in recent years. </p>
<p>The signage sketches shown in the article actually show Akzidenz Grotesk, which wasn&#8217;t what Unimark spec&#8217;ed. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve also read that the &#8220;line&#8221; above the text in every sign was actually drawn in sketches to specify where the signs were attached &#8211; Unimark designed the signs to be modular, so they could be changed when service changed. The TA&#8217;s signmakers mistook the joint in the sign as an actual graphic line.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Steinemann</title>
		<link>http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/01/25/bob-noorda-transit-sign-designer-dies-at-82/#comment-70685</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Steinemann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:08:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=4899#comment-70685</guid>
		<description>Scott E is correct.  Akzidenz-Grotesk (also known as &quot;Standard&quot;) was used initially, but the MTA eventually shifted toward Helvetica. All new signs are in Helvetica, but the older signs can still be spotted all over. They key difference between the two fonts can be seen in letters like &quot;C&quot; and &quot;S&quot;. In Akzidenz-Grotesk, the ends of the &quot;S&quot; end at 45-degree angles; in Helvetica, the ends of the &quot;S&quot; end flat (parallel to the line). Akzidenz is also, generally speaking, rounder -- many letters have a very circular shape.

A FANTASTIC article about fonts and signage in the NYC subway system can be found here: http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/the-mostly-true-story-of-helvetica-and-the-new-york-city-subway?pp=1</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott E is correct.  Akzidenz-Grotesk (also known as &#8220;Standard&#8221;) was used initially, but the MTA eventually shifted toward Helvetica. All new signs are in Helvetica, but the older signs can still be spotted all over. They key difference between the two fonts can be seen in letters like &#8220;C&#8221; and &#8220;S&#8221;. In Akzidenz-Grotesk, the ends of the &#8220;S&#8221; end at 45-degree angles; in Helvetica, the ends of the &#8220;S&#8221; end flat (parallel to the line). Akzidenz is also, generally speaking, rounder &#8212; many letters have a very circular shape.</p>
<p>A FANTASTIC article about fonts and signage in the NYC subway system can be found here: <a href="http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/the-mostly-true-story-of-helvetica-and-the-new-york-city-subway?pp=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.aiga.org/content.cf.....ubway?pp=1</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott E</title>
		<link>http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/01/25/bob-noorda-transit-sign-designer-dies-at-82/#comment-70684</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott E</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:45:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=4899#comment-70684</guid>
		<description>I had thought that the Akzidenz-Grotesk font was originally used by transit because it was public domain, and they transitioned to Helvetica later.

The two are very similar, but some of the more notable differences are in the letters J, Q, and R (all of which are shown in A-G in the pictures above).  With the &quot;J&quot;, the hook at the bottom appears incomplete in A-G; with &quot;Q&quot;, the diagonal line doesn&#039;t go inside the circle (I still see this A-G remnant on some service advisories); and with the &quot;R&quot;, the A-G version has a diagonal line while Helvetica uses a rounded right-angle for the bottom-right portion.  (You can see the current-day Helvetica bullets &lt;a href=&quot;http://mta.info/nyct/service/schemain.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).  I still see the A-G version of &quot;Q&quot; on some Service Advisories.

But who can keep track.  I think I may just have too much free time...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had thought that the Akzidenz-Grotesk font was originally used by transit because it was public domain, and they transitioned to Helvetica later.</p>
<p>The two are very similar, but some of the more notable differences are in the letters J, Q, and R (all of which are shown in A-G in the pictures above).  With the &#8220;J&#8221;, the hook at the bottom appears incomplete in A-G; with &#8220;Q&#8221;, the diagonal line doesn&#8217;t go inside the circle (I still see this A-G remnant on some service advisories); and with the &#8220;R&#8221;, the A-G version has a diagonal line while Helvetica uses a rounded right-angle for the bottom-right portion.  (You can see the current-day Helvetica bullets <a href="http://mta.info/nyct/service/schemain.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>).  I still see the A-G version of &#8220;Q&#8221; on some Service Advisories.</p>
<p>But who can keep track.  I think I may just have too much free time&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

