Talk:Button copy

Which photo?

Image:I10-800.jpeg has graffiti, but the button copy stands out. The replacements Scott5114 is using - Image:I-70 Wheeling Island apch.jpg and Image:Button copy gore point.jpg - are not as clear. --NE2 18:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Image:US 69, 9 mi to Pryor.jpg? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Still not as clear, and lacks arrows. Image:I10-800.jpeg shows not only text but also how arrows and shields use button copy. --NE2 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why's it matter if it has arrows? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It makes it more informative. --NE2 19:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? The reader will be more informed by that sign, since he'll see how button copy was used on arrows and shields. --NE2 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the image with graffiti on it because the graffiti is a complete distraction, even if the buttons are easier to see. A photo with a better quality sign is worth having over one that has graffiti on it. This comes from my perspective of being a photo editor. --Son (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a better quality photo though; the one with graffiti is the best we've got. --NE2 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed to both photos; is that better? Ideally we'd have more text and thus better positioning, but nobody's expanded the article yet. --NE2 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with NE2 here. I think the sign with a shield using button copy is important to include in the article, although it would be wonderful to have a better picture. I think the multiple pictures is a good compromise, since it gives the better quality picture the "place of prominence" at the top right of the article. -- NORTH ^talk 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could crop out everything but the shield on that one, then? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A close-up similar to the M? Like those Guinness guys say, Brilliant! -- NORTH ^talk 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it good now? --NE2 20:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, IMHO. -- NORTH ^talk 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

More images

Well, I've got a lot of photos on my hard drive from my trip to DC and back, so we can go through those and hopefully find a better one that everyone likes. If someone objects to one I'll find another and upload it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Image:I-70 IN 73B apch.jpg —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • One at night would be good. It's hard to see the buttons during the daytime. Otherwise I'd go for clarity over graffiti, in focus over blurred, and optionally, using Photoshop to enhance the buttons so as to make them visible. Taking more pictures is always an option - if a "not as good" one is settled on for now, that's fine, so long as an effort is made to take a better picture. —Rob (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a few from West Virginia and Ohio -- some were installed in Ohio until 2005 or early 2006 even! *sigh* I miss button copy. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A pair of pictures of the same sign, with one taken in full sun, the other taken at night would be nice. SlowJog (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Button copy becoming obsolete?

Why there are trying to get rid of the button copy signs? What is the purpose of getting rid of it? I like having it there. I do not want all the button copy signs to be long gone.

Modern retroreflective sheeting provides better nighttime visibility. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Button copy was probably more expensive and harder to maintain, or at least I suspect so. Maybe someone could find a reference for that.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Images arrangement.change

The arrangement of images could be much better, perhaps with a gallery. The LA sign is especially annoying.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"more visible at longer distance" claim

The article contains the claim retroreflective sheeting is clearly visible and readable at much longer distances than button copy. That is not so. Button copy is not categorically inferior to sheeting. Some grades of sheeting have lower coefficients of retroreflectivity than buttons and some have higher; there is no simple "X is better than Y" type of comparison possible. But it's easy to get that misimpression by reading the SJ Mercury News article which was used as support for the assertion, because the article is not written well.

For one thing, no, button copy does not require sign-mounted lights. The whole point of a retroreflector, whether it is a round hard plastic "button" or a piece of sheeting, is to retroreflect, and there is no retroreflection involved in a driver's ability to see/read a self-lit sign at night. Some button-copy signs were/are equipped with lights, and so are some sheeting signs. As a vehicle approaches an overhead retroreflective sign (of any type), the amount of light reaching the sign from the vehicle's headlights decreases and the difference increases between the entrance angle (angle at which headlights strike the sign) and observation angle (angle at which the viewer sees the sign). The greater this difference, the less brightly will the sign reflect the headlights. Lighting an overhead sign can enhance its conspicuity and provide easier legibility at short seeing distances where headlights don't do as good a job.

Also, the article compares the useful life of button copy versus sheeting, but doesn't clearly explain that sheeting age-degrades (gets less retroreflective/dimmer at night) faster and worse than button copy. You can lose a large percentage of the buttons in a button copy sign and still have acceptable legibility, because of the undamaged buttons adjacent to the damaged or degraded ones, but with sheeting the entire sign degrades together.

I am not claiming we were better off with button copy, but neither were we categorically worse off. Sheeting signs are faster and easier to make, and last longer, but button copy signs can be altered and reconfigured for new road names or revised interchanges, etc, rather than making a whole new sign. It's just two different sets of trade-offs with two different technologies. The main reasons why button copy was phased out was the higher cost of making button copy signs; computer-driven sheeting cutters can whip out a sheeting sign quick, easy, and cheap, number one.

Number two, there was a philosophical shift in how signs should be constructed. For many years, button copy was the only retroreflective portion of a sign; the background was either not retroreflective, or only weakly so. That made the button copy really "pop" at night when headlights hit it. Gradually, it became considered desirable to have the background retroreflective, too, and a highly retroreflective background makes button copy much harder to read at night versus the previous background. With sheeting, the various colors' retroreflective performance is tailored to work well together.

Source for all this: I was an engineer in the industry for many years, until my recent retirement. I am not suggesting anyone should just change the article based only on my words here; I know that is not how Wikipedia works. What I am saying is that better-informed sources are needed in order to have this be an accurate, useful article. 12.124.172.6 (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)