I think that Avenir could be used well, but it’s not ideal. The best typefaces for this purpose have big apertures, low contrast, and easily distinguishable letterforms. Frutiger and Meta, as you mentioned, would work well, but Univers is not ideal, owing to its tighter letterforms. This is the thinking behind the new Clearview Highway typeface.

I would recommend Arrival

Thank you Auricfuzz.

When you say ’big apertures’ do you mean more open, less enclosed.
Or just a larger negative space?

For me, aperture means the opening between the counter and the outside of the letter, such as the ’a’, ’e’, ’c’, ’s’. Unless there’s a better word for that. This crucial piece never seems to be on any of the typeface anatomy diagrams.

Notice how Arrival is generally more open thanks to this wide aperture, especially in the ’e’ and ’s’.

Besides those you mentioned, another good example is Versa Sans:

Very informative—thank you!

Also made especially for signage: FF Info and FF Transit

Don’t forget ClearviewADA which was designed to conform with the typeface guidelines specified in the Americans with Disabilities Act legislation.

Yes very informative, thank you all.

Another typeface mentioned earlier, Gerard Ungers’s Argo. Not specifically designed for wayshowing, though I think would work well when a slightly more expressive font is desired.
(eg. Shopping centre signage vs. Road signs - which ideally should be more neutral)

Tiresias was developed especially for persons with visual impairments (although not totally blind).

More questions.

So an open aperture (counter) increases legibility by reducing stroke convergence?
I can understand this being an important consideration for illuminated signs, but is it still a factor for standard signage?

Does stroke convergence cause the individual letters to be less distinguishable at a glance, or from a distance?

Interestingly Mr Unger states on his website that Argo:
“is pronounced and contrasty. As a result, it is not used for applications like wayfinding (where neutrality is apparently a virtue), being seen instead mainly in house styles, periodicals and newspapers.”

Though I do think he is being slightly sarcastic, as his Capitolium is certainly not ’neutral’
http://www.gerardunger.com/allmytypedesigns/allmytypedesigns16.html

A small aperture (as in Helvetica) can cause e’s and c’s to look like o’s. Generally, it’s more familiar and thus easier to read type with a wide aperture. It all goes toward making each letterform as easily distinguishable from a distance as possible, although ultimately most type should be okay enough for typical signage.

EDIT: Carl, you’re right; it’s not typical of me to surrender so easily when it comes to type. I was just trying to assure Jem that most of the typefaces mentioned in this thread should work well; there’s no single incredibly legible type.

“most type should be okay enough for typical signage.”

I’m doing a signage system in Swank for an airport! ;)

I think Unger is probably pointing out how conservative most people are in choosing these things. It has to look like other airports, it has to not be too interesting, it has to be “neutral” etc. The typical committee attitude. In spite of this, I think one of the best (meaning clearest, most differentiated, strongest) suggestions so far is Versa Sans. But try to find anyone in the US who would dare use such a wild and unruly face for wayfinding. That’s crazy talk! ;)

Here’s more about Tiresias.

IIRC Gerard Unger stated in a lecture, in regards to Capitolium, that it can work as a wayfinding font in Rome because it was to be used, largely, in the tourist areas where all you can do is walk, or at best, ride your Vespa slowly. (Wish I could find my notes.)

Here’s more about Tiresias.

Yes, I’ve seen this before, Carl: what concerns me is that it doesn’t seem to do anything other than scream a lot without much substantive comment. In fact, I used one of the versions to test my subjects wrt to signage (as opposed to just screen fonts), and the overwhelming majority thought it was a great improvement: they don’t cite my work as being pro-Tiresias.

I notice they didn’t bother looking very far for citations to support their own position either: that lack of academic rigour on both fronts doesn’t encourage them to be taken seriously from either side.

Granted, the existing signage I used was acknowledged as not being sufficient, and the client was looking for something “better” — they ended up using a mix of Minion and Myriad, which was an improvement, mainly because they didn’t want to spend *any* money on something new.

(And gee, that rant reminds me far too much of Design Observer lately....)

Edit: repeating Linda’s comment

Tim

Tiresias was designed by a vision researcher, not by a type designer. No type designers were involved in declaring it the perfect font to “improve legibility for all”. For starters, the way captioning is done requires more than one style; Tiresias doesn’t even have an Italic. Here’s my favorite quote from John Gill:

“Within the time available, thorough testing to determine the optimal design of the typeface was not possible. However[,] limited testing was done with patients in a low-vision clinic to identify the features of a typeface which they found helpful.”

Accessibility issues are different for people with low or impaired vision (John Gill’s main concern), and for people with normal or average vision who are deaf, and who require captioning to access media content. Those issues were ignored in the Tiresias research, such as it was. And we’re talking about type for wayfinding, which is yet a different challenge. Tiresias has a few merits for those with low vision, but it’s far from ideal for general wayfinding.

Accessibility issues are different for people with low or impaired vision (John Gill’s main concern), and for people with normal or average vision who are deaf, and who require captioning to access media content. Those issues were ignored in the Tiresias research, such as it was. And we’re talking about type for wayfinding, which is yet a different challenge.

While Dr. Gill and his team may not have done that work, others have — I’m one of them — and I know for a fact that my work has been referenced by others.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, why is our subsequent work being ignored here? And why is there no supporting evidence — that’s real facts in peer-reviewed academic literature, not specious, unsupported, and blanket statements like “it wasn’t done by a type designer” — being presented?

Just curious....

Where can we read about your subsequent work, Linda? I’m fixating on Tiresias because you brought it up. It’s not specious or uninformed to say John Gill isn’t a type designer; he isn’t.

Carl, all I’m asking for is some concrete, academic proof about the flaws of Tiresias — is this the only defence you can offer? Put something up or move on....

(And if you’ve got access to all the wonderful academic databases, you can look up articles that cite my thesis yourself.)

For what it’s worth… I think that wayfinding type choices are way too conservative. Any font with enough contrast should do the trick, IF it’s applied with finesse.

Eg imagine my wonder when I met FF Scala Sans as main font for the signage along Chicago’s waterfront. It was just wonderful, because the design was done really well.

BTW: I had a look at Tiresias and I think it’s main feature is blandness — as if it has been designed by a committee.

>”For what it’s worth… I think that wayfinding type choices are way too conservative. Any font with enough contrast should do the trick, IF it’s applied with finesse.”

Why choose any old font, when you can choose one that best serves it’s function?

>Tiresias was designed by a vision researcher, not by a type designer.
Even Joe Clark allows that it was designed by a team led by Dr Gill
http://www.laker-sharville.com/lettering.html

Tim

>choose one that best serves it’s function?

That’s an excellent idea. However, roads, captioning on TV screens, and signage in buildings seem to me significantly different.

Clearview is so far as I know the only font demonstrated to be superior to existing US signage. As I remember you can read it 2 seconds sooner at 60 mph, compared to the existing standard.

Wayfinding within a building would seem to me to have much more latitude as far as the issue of legibility. There I would think aesthetics become much more important—enhancing the mood and spirit of the organization or purpose of the building. Outdoor signage for pedestrians would seem to me to be somewhere in between...

Agreed William, and sorry to Jem for the derailment, what is the use for the wayfinding system or is it a general query? Another thought
http://www.stormtype.com/typefaces-fonts-shop/families-15-etelka

Tim

Wayfinding within a building would seem to me to have much more latitude as far as the issue of legibility. There I would think aesthetics become much more important—enhancing the mood and spirit of the organization or purpose of the building.

Well, in the sense that it doesn’t have to be read and comprehended while consistently travelling at high speed, you’re correct. That being said, architects and designers (type and interior) also need to take into account emergency situations, where it’s absolutely necessary that the right information be communicated to all the people as quickly as possible. In these crazy days of litigation, that’s becoming very much a front-of-mind issue.

(And I doubt that anyone needs to be told that “design” is suffering in the process.)

It’s a very fine line to walk — what might be an acceptable sign in a well-lit area with few people is likely utterly useless when there’s a power outage and a panicked crowd.

Perhaps implementation of signage is the most overlooked aspect. Typeface is talked about and reviewed because it is involved in the whole process. It is rare that much real anylitical thought goes into the wording and placement of individual signs. An example is the Washington Metro developed in the mid 70s. Yes, the type is your basic Helvetica vinyls sign letters but that is another story. The sadder part is the number of handwritten signs placed by local Metro staff or frustrated passengers in order to rectify the poor implementation of the designed signage. Things magic markered on paper that say “This way to Virginia” or “Airport this way” indicate that after 30 years, the signage still does not do the job.

ChrisL

I’ve seen way worse signage than in Metro though, Chris, OTOH just finding one’s way anywhere in DC is a huge challenge at best. Heck, for the first four years I lived there, I went nowhere without my ADC pocket atlas of inside the beltway, and heaven help me if I was going elsewhere.

One would think, for all the tourist traffic that The Mall gets, that wayfinding would be a snap, but it’s anything but.

The panhandlers make a fortune on the Mall “giving” tourists directions and maps which they stole from the Smithsonian free box.

ChrisL

>choose one that best serves it’s function?
>That’s an excellent idea. However, roads, captioning on TV screens, and signage in buildings seem to me significantly different.

Totally agree, that is what I was inferring. Every sign has its own set of functional requirements, the first being; to be seen, read and undersood.

every sign has its own set of functional requirements.

Well, there is an awful lot of overlap. ;-) Signage for public building A will have pretty similar requirements for public building B, no matter their size, location, or function (i.e., large bank in a major urban area vs. country grocery store vs. isolated nature retreat).

It’s the implementation that differs....

Not the most legible typeface from a distance, though still an interesting mix of branding requirements and wayshowing requirements.

The blue and white is one of the better combinations that you can use, however, and that contributes a lot to the visibility. Compare that with “Next Left,” for example.

Which is why blanket statements like “Font A is better than Font B for signage/wayfinding” are pretty useless — when you mix in size, colour combinations, lighting, and a swack of other factors, lots of fonts can fill the bill.

Imagine that orange on red at night! It is bad enough during daylight.

ChrisL

A common mistake made by wayfinding designers is to evaluate their typographic decisions solely on their computer screen or maybe in a letter or tab sized printout. Rarely do they make full scale mock-ups and evaluate them in situ. This leads to many wayfinding legends that are too tightly letterspaced for their intended purpose.

Absolutely.

Unfortunately, a common mistake made by designers is that anyone who does a sign thinks they are an “expert” at wayfinding — the overwhelming amount of bad signage and wayfinding choices is ample proof that it’s both a science and an art.

Yes, but my original post was about type choice.

Colors aside, the font shown on the Disney sign (anyone?) is not as legible from a distance as a font with open apertures. Sure the most legible font in the world is not going to be readable if there is not enough contrast between the letters and the background, or if the size is too small, that is a given.

> Unfortunately, a common mistake made by designers is that anyone who does a sign thinks they are an “expert” at wayfinding — the overwhelming amount of bad signage and wayfinding choices is ample proof that it’s both a science and an art.

There are many excellent signage systems (by designers) as well:

There are many excellent signage systems (by designers) as well

There are, in fact, very few, and the fact that you’ve posted the three best is evidence of that.

Disney – Univers(?) or do they have a similar corporate sans?

Surely the leading (set solid?) is way too tight to be effective, especially compared with the word space, but the arrow is totally useless up in the ear and why bother with a stem that fine.

Tim

No Linda, the reason I have only posted three is they are examples only,
I don’t really have the time to try and convice you otherwise.

Jem, wanting to concentrate about type (especially here) is admirable, but to emphasize it beyond other elements isn’t really useful if you want to discuss “wayfinding” as a broader concept, simply because there is no one best solution.

Every font that keeps getting pushed out as being the “be-all and end-all” for signage has its faults — blandness is certainly one, but when you consider all the requirements that need to be met, it’s not hard to simply devolve to the lowest common denominator.

Sure the most legible font in the world is not going to be readable if there is not enough contrast between the letters and the background, or if the size is too small, that is a given.

You personally might think that colour and size considerations are a given, but expecting every other designer (or client!) to know, implement, or approve those ideas is awfully unrealistic. Unfortunately, stupidity and ignorance aren’t crimes.... :-(

I don’t really have the time to try and convice you otherwise.

Probably because you couldn’t anyway. ;-)

Some, maybe even many — I wouldn’t go as far as “most” — designers can make great standalone signage.

A handful of designers, or architects, or planners, are capable, on their own, to do great wayfinding systems: it takes a broad-based multidisciplinary approach to do it well, a “checking of egos at the door,” and a client (individual or company) to have the intelligence, time, and money to want to do what is best for the end-users.

> Jem, wanting to concentrate about type (especially here) is admirable, but to emphasize it beyond other elements isn’t really useful if you want to discuss “wayfinding” as a broader concept, simply because there is no one best solution.

Linda I didn’t emphasize typography above other signage elements, that is your assumption.

As I mentioned my original post was about typeface legibity for signage. Linda this is Typophile.com

> Probably because you couldn’t anyway. ;-)

Linda, to get you started ;-)

Per Mollerup
Gerard Unger: Type design for Dutch road signs (1997) ANWB + Capitolium
Metadesign/Erik Spiekermann: BVG
Frutiger: Charles de gaulle
Gottschalk +Ash: Calgary International Airport
Roger Pfund: International Red Cross and Red Crescent Museum
Cato design: Sydney International airport
Wolf Olins: Tate / Lisbon Metro / Heathrow Express
Beat Keusch
Ken Miki & Associates
Pentagram
Integral Ruedi-Baur
Josef Muller Brockmann
Otl Aicher
Stockholm design lab
Gary Emery Studio
Vignelli Associates
etc.

Anyone else care to add?

Sigh... I also have spent a great deal of time on this subject. I started chatting on Typophile when I was working on my thesis a couple of years ago. Linda and I have in common working on wayfinding for a Master’s thesis. (Mine was on New York City’s signage system.)

Anyway. What Linda speaks of is true...there are too many people, designers included— who think there is one end-all-be-all solution for signage. I can’t tell you how many fights I’ve gotten into about Helvetica for signage (some here and on Typographica).

I also think that Frutiger, Arrival and Clearview are among the best designed for the genre and Clearview as far as I know (as Bill mentioned) is the only one that has been backed up with field testing...(though Keith Tam and Gerry Leonidas might be able to prove me wrong.) :)

The other point thing is, some of us here have done a LOT of research on the subject (Linda, James and to a lesser extent myself) so opinions and viewpoints will differ greatly. Bottom line, what we as designers think looks good has nothing to do with what testing and research can ultimately reveal.

Anyone else care to add?

Where do I begin? Most of the samples you cited LOOK nice. But if we’re talking about true field testing for legibility and wayfinding— they don’t all stand up to the test.

Which test?

Adrian Frutiger
Josef Muller Brockmann
Erik Spiekermann
Per Mollerup
Gerard Unger
...Biddy?

a little respect please.

Like Terry said, your first list members look nice but they mostly don’t stand up to any kind of POE* test. Your second list gets closer to the sort of people I was referring to as the “handful.”

*POE = Post-occupancy evaluation

Which test?

In POE, there’s not just one-size-fits-all test you pull off a shelf. To develop a test, a set of variables is defined as being specific for the venue to be examined, a range of objective values is determined for each variable, a statistical weighting is assigned for each variable to ensure that variables are ranked and prioritized, a sample of people is selected to subjectively evaluate the subject area, and then you crunch a lot of math.

Someone who knows what they are doing can construct and develop a test that will result in a statistically acceptable variance when all is said and done, assuming there is a fairly homogeneous sample to perform the evaluation to start with.

But things can get much more “interesting” (i..e., complex) when the inquiry starts to cover multiple venues, diverse evaluating sample (wide range of ages and abilities, in particular), or a poorly selected set of variables and inappropriate weighting to start with.

As I said above, very few designers, architects, and planners have this sort of expertise, and feel that they “know best” when it comes to wayfinding.

With rare exception, they don’t.

Gerard Unger’s work with n|p|k for the ANWB was tested in the field. I remember visiting n|p|k’s office and seeing sample posts. Gerard has given talks about the type design as well.

Type design for Dutch road signs

Linda, do you have any examples of wayshowing signage that you consider to be successful?

Tiff: I’m a huge fan of Unger’s work, and the link you posted up is terrific.

Road signage has its own quirks (as we’ve discussed previously, speed being the primary one), and to some degree, a smaller range of variables and sample size to test. For starters, you don’t generally get transportation engineers wanting to mess around with different colours of asphalt for different roads, or little kids who drive. ;-)

At the opposite end of things, you’ve got airports — if you can do an airport well, you’ve got it made.

Off the top of my head, CDG is probably the most exemplary example, unless they’ve changed something radically since the last time I was there. There, it’s not “just” the signs, it’s little things like how the chime (which I gather has been discontinued), the decor, and the architecture work together.

The expression “sense of place” is horrifically and frequently inappropriately used to communicate a venue’s zeitgeist: CDG is one of the few places where it really exists.

Before they did a massive reno a few years ago, the airport at Minneapolis-St. Paul was actually pretty good too — I haven’t been there lately. If you watch the movie Airport, you get a half-decent sense of the terminal, where they shot the interiors.

Sorry Linda, I meant examples other than the ones I have already mentioned.
(being Ungers work and the Charles De Gaulle)

Agree Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport signage is good.

Not that qualifies as being “outstandingly great” — there’s a large mass of “they do X very well, Y really poorly, and everything else falls somewhere in the middle with a lot that needs improving” though....

(And far too much of “you’ve got to be kidding!” but we won’t go there.) :-(

From the outside of this discussion—as a non-wayfinding designer—I’d say a lot of this is science, but some of it must be subjective. Maybe a little bit of “we read best what we read most”?

Adrian Frutiger
Josef Muller Brockmann
Erik Spiekermann
Per Mollerup
Gerard Unger
…Biddy?

a little respect please.

Give me a break. This isn’t meant to be a flame-war. This is an open discussion. A lot of people have worked on wayfinding systems but some of those places (and people) you have mentioned are more interested in following established rules of acceptance as opposed to actual field research.

There are very few studies on typography legibility on signage as extensive as that done on the Clearview Highway System. Very few if any of the groups of people on your list have researched one particular area of wayfinding signage as extensively.

While I respect Massimo Vignelli’s contributions to the field of design, he’s hardly the best person to name here as he restricts his typeface usage to just a few typefaces. His major wayfinding systems primarily use Azkidenz-Grotesk or Helvetica.

No one would argue with Erik Spiekermann’s name on the list, as well as others and...with the exception of Massimo...I didn’t single anyone out. So why single me out?

You came here looking for answers right? So please respect the people who can help you with your questions. Should I have just said Avenir won’t cut it?

You also left out the people who have written one of the few manuals on the subject of wayfinding: Paul Arthur and Romedi Passini.

Apologies Biddy if you were offended, I must say I am disappointed how angry this post has become. Nothing more boring than a post that deteriorates into an ’us and them’ debate.

As Linda stated:
“a common mistake made by designers is that anyone who does a sign thinks they are an “expert” at wayfinding”

Blanket statements like that are just unhelpful.

That is why I started this post, to try and learn more about one aspect of signage design; typography (and I have, thanks Stephen&Terminal). I don’t consider myself an expert, never said I was.

This post was not intended to be 101 primer on wayfinding either, that should be keep for another post (or another forum)

Anyway, so I guess the answer is No, Avenir is not appropriate for wayshowing signage.
Or is it? ;-)

I think the real answer lies in getting specific about the application, and that goes back to the other factors that tend to be important in wayfinding applications. Some wayfinding applications are so cakey they hardly require any usability research or traffic analysis (tropical resort complex), and can be set in nearly any font you like. Some are so critical and fraught with legal and accessibility issues it’s unwise to start them without a team who can cover all the angles (Hospital site with multiple buildings, multiple car entries, designated emergency area), and there, type choice is more about clarity.

This is why we also can’t make a blanket statement about Avenir. In some situations it might be perfect. So, with that in mind, we should know more about the project. And by that, I mean, what distances will people use the signage from? Will the system need to work indoors, outdoors, or both? Who are the users (age and ability demographics)? What speed is the traffic: slow strolls, fast walking, gurneys and ambulances racing, highway traffic? Night, day, or both? Is there existing illumination? Reflected or transmitted illumination? Does the budget include illuminated sign bases? Will the signage hang overhead? As you can see it becomes very particular, and the answers to these questions help you make your decisions. It’s when users have very limited time or opportunities to take in the information on signage that the clarity and differentiation of a typeface becomes important. There’s more, but I think you need to pinpoint your other variables first.

Tiff: From the outside of this discussion—as a non-wayfinding designer—I’d say a lot of this is science, but some of it must be subjective. Maybe a little bit of “we read best what we read most”

Defining “subjective” is, ah, well, subjective. ;-) If you reread my message about constructing a test, you’ll note that the construction part is objective (a question from my thesis was, “what is the floor like?” 1 point for polished concrete, 2 points for textured or painted concrete, 3 points for textured and painted concrete, 4 points for low-pile wall-to-wall carpet or area rugs, 5 points for dense wall-to-wall carpet). That should be pretty easy for anyone to score.

But for a wayfinding task (“where is the washroom?”), that’s subjective: a venue might do well objectively on one or more individual elements — floor/wall colour/texture, lighting, font type/size, location/colour/size of sign, for example — but how those elements come together to facilitate the process is a subjective analysis.

In creating the test, what’s important is that as many of the objective elements are covered that can impact the subjective question.

Familiarity doesn’t hurt, of course, unless what’s being used is so ubiquitous that the intended audience tunes it out like so much white noise. Finding a balance between that comfort and perking the right kind of attention — you don’t want an “ewww” reaction either! — isn’t easy.

Jem: The say the work of Fruitger, Unger and Muller-Brockmann etc. only look nice is in ‘my opinion’ disrespectful. Most of the designers mentioned on that list have proved their capabilities many times over.

Well, you’re pushing your luck with “many times over.” They’ve done fab work in isolated venues, to say that everything they touch turns to gold is incorrect.

Anyway, so I guess the answer is No, Avenir is not appropriate for wayshowing signage. Or is it? ;-)

In the right weight, with appropriate colours, lighting, intended audience, and architecture, maybe. :-) Depends....

Carl: I think the real answer lies in getting specific about the application, and that goes back to the other factors that tend to be important in wayfinding applications.

If you substituted “useability” for “wayfinding,” you would have been dead on: that’s what it boils down to.

“Looks nice” isn’t high up on the useability list as you might think. Louis Sullivan once proclaimed that “Form Follows Function” and it seems that a lot of design (type, architectural, and interior) is more interested in exploiting technology than being useful these days.

Thank you Cossgrove, I totally agree.
I would prefer to keep the details of the project confidential, though all the factors you mention will definitely be taken into consideration if need be.

As far as the Avenir question, I think you have answered it.

Saul Goode, Jem. I also agree with Carl. It very much depends on the “type” of wayfinding system we’re talking about, and of course the scope of the project. For small brand oriented wayfinding projects, you could probably get away with using anything.

There will always be type wayfinding debates, even the experts don’t agree. Paul Arthur and Romedi Passini disagree with Erik Spiekermann on x-height for example. (There was a debate on Typophile not to long ago about that as well.)

Wayfinding debates are almost as anal-retentive for detail as font construction ones. ;-)

Jem, why don’t you make some tiled output in the size, colors, and typefaces you think might work, mount them on something light and rigid (Sintra? Fomecor?) and actually fasten those dummies to a wall/doorway/exterior location. (I know you don’t want to divulge much so I’m not sure what places you are planning.) Then approach the dummies as you would if you were a “spatial consumer” just a bit lost and first encountering the signs. That can give you a much better sense of the suitability of, say, Avenir for your project than discussions here. Right on, Carl, for all the factors you mentioned above. If the signage is to be seen from cars, be sure to evaluate at the typical speed of travel, too. Then report back to us on what you find.

Am I the only one tired of Linda Cunningham’s claims that she authored various research papers while refusing to cite any sources? (TRIS returns no hits relating to signage and wayfinding for “Cunningham, L,” nor does any other obvious search.)

She’s quite off the mark in her dismissal of my criticism of Tiresias Screenfont. Among other things, it’s a screenfont, not a signage font.

—
Joe Clark
http://joeclark.org/

Before they did a massive reno a few years ago, the airport at Minneapolis-St. Paul was actually pretty good too — I haven’t been there lately. If you watch the movie Airport, you get a half-decent sense of the terminal, where they shot the interiors.

Actually, the signage of the movie Airport was created especially for the movie by Paul Mijksenaar from Holland. He was asked to do this because of his work on one of the NY airports. I can’t remember which. Anyway, he has a picture in his office standing right next to Steven Spielberg. Quite cool!

As wayfinding goes, I find that I strongly favour what Paul does. One of his showcase projects is Schiphol in Amsterdam and he’s done airports all over the world.

He himself has lectured and written a lot about wayfinding and has established several keypoints that a system is based on. Out of the 7 points, the choice of typeface is defined as last. His personal favourite is Frutiger which he himself is turning into a global airport typeface via the numerous projects that he has worked on.

Anyway, just thought that the discussion was missing a key figure. As for the question, Avenir is a great typeface, Avenir Next even more, but if you like the Adrian Frutiger touch then you should go for the Frutiger.