3 ms·

I find the spinner interface is a bit clunky in the first place as well. I haven't found anything as fast to use as the N9-style circle[1]. [1] http://www.niti

by Nition 9y ago

I find the spinner interface is a bit clunky in the first place as well. I haven't found anything as fast to use as the N9-style circle[1]. [1] http://www.nition.co/2014/08/the-nokia-n9-alarm-clock http://www.nition.co/2014/08/the-nokia-n9-alarm-clock

kalleboo 9y ago
I still find a number pad to be the fastest. Why am I spinning something around and trying to position it right when I just just press three buttons 9-3-0?
- jljljl 9y ago
  For alarms and clock times, my guess is data validation. The app could correct or block invalid time entries (e.g., accidentally hitting 2500), or it could restrict the entry set. It also means the number will be in the correct format. your example, 930, could mean many things (930 seconds? 9:30am or 9:30 pm?)
  - npgatech 9y ago
    If all inputs are in hh:mm format, then there is no ambiguity of 930 as 9:30 am/pm. There could be a toggle for AM/PM. Who puts seconds as an input for setting their morning alarm? MAD!
    - dogecoinbase 9y ago
      What's the unambiguous setting of 73:45 in hh:mm format?
      - oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
        Invalid input, just as the empty string or a single digit would be.
      - KozmoNau7 9y ago
        3 days, 1 hour, 45 minutes. Simple. The Android clock app silently corrects 73 minutes to 1 hour 13 minutes. So for 1:13:45 (hh:mm:ss) you can input "7345" on the keypad and It. Just. Works.
        lobster_johnson 9y ago
        But an alarm clock sets a relative point in time that happens every day. Putting "3 days" into a calendar is fine, but for an alarm clock it makes no sense.
        KozmoNau7 9y ago
        So you add basic input validation.
        lobster_johnson 9y ago
        Yes, but the person who originally proposed this argued that there was no ambiguity.
endless1234 9y ago
That seems quite similar to Android's/material design's current time picker, https://material.io/guidelines/components/pickers.html#pickers-time-pickers https://material.io/guidelines/components/pickers.html#picke..., which is such an improvement over scrolly scrolly scroll scroll style mobile time pickers
pmontra 9y ago
Android 6+ has something like that: no need to spin there tough, all the numbers are already available for tapping. A screenshot at the beginning of https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37809848/can-we-use-some-other-type-of-time-picker https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37809848/can-we-use-some... However IMHO it's a big usability regression from the old time picker widget, which was a number pad to enter the four digits a time is made of. I know the time I want to set and instead of typing it straight away I have to look for numbers on a dial. It takes longer. Design teams are losing their way. Too much eye candy is making them blind to efficiency, pun intended.

by Nition 9y ago

kalleboo 9y ago

I still find a number pad to be the fastest. Why am I spinning something around and trying to position it right when I just just press three buttons 9-3-0?

jljljl 9y ago
For alarms and clock times, my guess is data validation. The app could correct or block invalid time entries (e.g., accidentally hitting 2500), or it could restrict the entry set. It also means the number will be in the correct format. your example, 930, could mean many things (930 seconds? 9:30am or 9:30 pm?)
- npgatech 9y ago
  If all inputs are in hh:mm format, then there is no ambiguity of 930 as 9:30 am/pm. There could be a toggle for AM/PM. Who puts seconds as an input for setting their morning alarm? MAD!
  - dogecoinbase 9y ago
    What's the unambiguous setting of 73:45 in hh:mm format?
    - oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
      Invalid input, just as the empty string or a single digit would be.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      3 days, 1 hour, 45 minutes. Simple. The Android clock app silently corrects 73 minutes to 1 hour 13 minutes. So for 1:13:45 (hh:mm:ss) you can input "7345" on the keypad and It. Just. Works.
      - lobster_johnson 9y ago
        But an alarm clock sets a relative point in time that happens every day. Putting "3 days" into a calendar is fine, but for an alarm clock it makes no sense.
        KozmoNau7 9y ago
        So you add basic input validation.
        lobster_johnson 9y ago
        Yes, but the person who originally proposed this argued that there was no ambiguity.

endless1234 9y ago

That seems quite similar to Android's/material design's current time picker, https://material.io/guidelines/components/pickers.html#pickers-time-pickers https://material.io/guidelines/components/pickers.html#picke..., which is such an improvement over scrolly scrolly scroll scroll style mobile time pickers

pmontra 9y ago

Android 6+ has something like that: no need to spin there tough, all the numbers are already available for tapping. A screenshot at the beginning of https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37809848/can-we-use-some-other-type-of-time-picker https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37809848/can-we-use-some... However IMHO it's a big usability regression from the old time picker widget, which was a number pad to enter the four digits a time is made of. I know the time I want to set and instead of typing it straight away I have to look for numbers on a dial. It takes longer. Design teams are losing their way. Too much eye candy is making them blind to efficiency, pun intended.