Standards

[rktect 1]

Man, I hate to be the one to bitch about having a set of standards or at least some sort of conformity when submitting a set of plans but I am just so tired right now from my latest review. At the very least your own firm should have a standard, no?

How many font types and sizes would anybody here say is acceptable? The plans I just looked at, on one sheet, has a minimum of 7 font sizes and about 4 different font types. This one sheet is littered with little "notes" boxes. Each box has just one note in it. The boxes are all different sizes and shapes. There are 95 "notes" boxes on this one 36x24 sheet along with 2 floor plans, 2 schedules, plumbing riser diagrams and a symbols list. Some of the notes are so small I'd need to be a lilipushian to read them while others are so large it's like being yelled at when reading them.

2300 sq. ft. new home. Took me all of one day to get through the mess (8 sheets), er....... I mean plans.

 

[Gene Boecker]

Re: Standards

I guess that maybe I'm old school on this item. I'd say that there should be no more than 2 font styles on a sheet - or throughout the set actually. There should be a single, general font style for construction communication information (that standard drawing stuff we do). If there are "notes" they can be in a different font and size to draw attention to themselves. Beyond that, its just adding chaos to confusion.

 

[JBI]

Re: Standards

Sounds like the DPs' firm got new software and somebody wanted to 'play' with it.

Try a polite suggestion that the review time would be significantly reduced in the future if there were fewer fonts and sizes. In the meantime, establish an office policy that you can addendum to the application limiting fonts and sizes.

 

[vegas paul]

Re: Standards

For residential plansl like you describe, I don't hesitate to reject them, citing IRC R106.1.1. - "Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity..."

Same thing for commercial, see IBC 106.1.1.

 

[brudgers]

Re: Standards

Plan reviewers should stick to reviewing plans.

Be a design critic on your own time.

BTW, ease of plan review fosters complacency not life safety.

 

[Gene Boecker]

Re: Standards

Who are you talking to, Brudgers?

 

[mark handler]

Re: Standards

rktect

Was it an architect? Building Designer? Draftsman? or contractor?

That did the plans?

Many Cities I deal with will not allow any text less than 3/16 inch.

 

[rktect 1]

Re: Standards

Plan reviewers should stick to reviewing plans.Be a design critic on your own time.

BTW, ease of plan review fosters complacency not life safety.

I don't know who pissed in your cheerios this morning but my review of this specific plan nor my comments on this BB had nothing to do with design nor trying to make my job easier just for the sake of slaking.

Some of the font size was so tinsy you COULD NOT READ IT. it was even smaller than this

I'm not the last person to have to read the plans either. In fact there are a whole bunch more people waiting in line to see these. People such as general contractors, bidders, carpenters, laborers, plumbers, electricians, so on and so forth. I'd think we'd want a set of plans that could be read if for no other reason than to make less mistakes than we might have to.

Of course that is just me.

This particular plan looked like a virtual bomb went off inside the virtual house and it splattered all over eight 36x24 sheets.

 

[rktect 1]

Re: Standards

rktectWas it an architect? Building Designer? Draftsman? or contractor?

That did the plans?

Many Cities I deal with will not allow any text less than 3/16 inch.

It was a brother architect. And I have to say that since I am an architect and other people in the building department such as inspectors and fire marshals see the plans come in, there are times I want to crawl away and deny my profession. :shock:

 

[brudgers]

Re: Standards

I'm not the last person to have to read the plans either. In fact there are a whole bunch more people waiting in line to see these. People such as general contractors, bidders, carpenters, laborers, plumbers, electricians, so on and so forth. I'd think we'd want a set of plans that could be read if for no other reason than to make less mistakes than we might have to.

What's relevent during plan review is quite simple.

Does the design meet code?

It's an objective question that doesn't depend on typographic aesthetics.

What trades people may be important in the big picture, but it ain't part of plan review.

 

[RickAstoria]

Re: Standards

Man, I hate to be the one to bitch about having a set of standards or at least some sort of conformity when submitting a set of plans but I am just so tired right now from my latest review. At the very least your own firm should have a standard, no?How many font types and sizes would anybody here say is acceptable? The plans I just looked at, on one sheet, has a minimum of 7 font sizes and about 4 different font types. This one sheet is littered with little "notes" boxes. Each box has just one note in it. The boxes are all different sizes and shapes. There are 95 "notes" boxes on this one 36x24 sheet along with 2 floor plans, 2 schedules, plumbing riser diagrams and a symbols list. Some of the notes are so small I'd need to be a lilipushian to read them while others are so large it's like being yelled at when reading them.

2300 sq. ft. new home. Took me all of one day to get through the mess (8 sheets), er....... I mean plans.

If I recall, there is a font (letter size) convention going all the way back to when things were hand-drafted. 3/16" the normal size font and the smallest font shall not be less then 1/8" (2/16"). This was part of conventional "Lettering".

I agree if it is any smaller then 1/8" (ok, no smaller then 3/32" for lowercase letters).

I don't recall there being anything smaller then that in real practice and when I do things by pencil/ink & paper, lettering is in the size range of 3/32" at the smallest (aprox.) and larger fonts for titling and what not. I'm old school but lettering was scaled to the architect rule.

It is with these new fangled computers that can do these 1 pt. font size that just can't be readable. Some cities even sets the minimum size lettering by dimensions or risk the plans being denied by the exercising of 106.1.1 (R106.1.1) provisions to deny. If the B.O. / Plan Reviewer can't read the plans lettering then it is not legible and may be denied.

If there is that much content (use a 36" x 48" sheet). What happens to the art of layout composition of content on the plans.

Anyway, this dino-SORE needs some rest.

 

[JBI]

Re: Standards

brudgers - If the reviewer can't read the plans due to the selected font being too small then the review is over as compliance cannot be ascertained.

Architects should stick to preparing plans, not playing with fonts.

On a more positive note, the multiple color options available today with various drafting programs can be a real asset in clarifying plans, especially for alteration projects where one color is used for existing conditions and another for proposed alterations.

 

[jar546]

Re: Standards

I for one have rejected plans because I could not read them. when a font is too small too read, not because you need a magnifying glass but because the quality of the print makes the letters run together then I have a problem and simply return them or send a letter of rejection.

some prints are fantastic, easy to read and others makes you wonder if they updated their cad program and printer since 1977. If you can't read it then it gets rejected. Real simple.

 

[brudgers]

Re: Standards

brudgers - If the reviewer can't read the plans due to the selected font being too small then the review is over as compliance cannot be ascertained. Architects should stick to preparing plans, not playing with fonts.

On a more positive note, the multiple color options available today with various drafting programs can be a real asset in clarifying plans, especially for alteration projects where one color is used for existing conditions and another for proposed alterations.

If compliance cannot be determined then obviously the plans should be rejected.

But the effort to determine compliance shouldn't be limited by the convenience of the plan reviewer.

 

[RickAstoria]

Re: Standards

True Brudgers and that is not the only conditions. Keep to context. If the plans are illegible then it is rejected for that. The architect/building designer/engineer in responsible charge is REQUIRED by law regarding professional standard of care to make the plans legible. One, the fonts shall NOT be too small that a person with 20/20 vision would have to have a scanning microscope. We aren't trying to etch the building plans onto a silicon microchip. Lack of such professional care IS negligence and places you in even greater liability because you fail to communicate the project information for construction. Illegible plans are simply going to cause the end result (the building) to deviate from the plans too much and can result in a big disaster.

First and foremost, the plans need to be readable by the builders for one and before building of such structure, it needs to be readable with lettering size sufficient in size to clearly indicate the information on the plans and the lettering is crisp enough to ascertain what the letters and words are. If the Plan Reviewer / Building Official can't ascertain what is on the plans because it looks like scribble or is so small that the letters looks like dots then it won't help. Also don't forget that ink bleeds and you may loose the crisp edges of the lettering if it is too small and may not tell if it is a O or a Q or a 0.

If it is too small then it is illegible. If it is poorly written/printed then it is illegible. The B.O./Plan Reviewer has the right to reject the plans because he/she is not able to tell the read the plans and tell the letters apart and therefore can not be able to ultimately determine if it is compliant with code. We might have trouble with 3,6,5 and 8 and even 9 and 0 if the lettering is a mess or so small that it is unreadable with human eyes.

The person preparing or in responsible charge of the preparation of such plans has a responsibility to preparing clear and legible and readable plans. If it is readable then the B.O./Plan Reviewer can determine if the plans comply with code. If it isn't, he/she isn't going to waste his/her time trying to understand it. If he/she can't read it, how do you expect the contractor?

Consider those issues. Plans maybe rejected for a number of issues and illegibility of plans is just one of them.

 

[Yikes]

Re: Standards

Actually, if the plans are littered with notes in different sizes - a plausible (but not excusable) scenario is:

1. The architect "red-lined" a quality control set of plans and then handed it to his junior draftsman, saying "here, make these changes".

2. Wanting to please the boss, the junior draftsman put it in CAD exactly the way he saw it on his red-mark plans... random comments and all.

3. The architect submitted without reviewing the work of his junior draftsman.

 

[peach]

Re: Standards

Or.. nobody enforces a standard for the submittals... until there is an issue..