4 ms·

Celsius Needs a Redesign (2019)

4 points by Leftium 5y ago

Leftium 5y ago
> I started writing this because of a thermostat in Australia that didn’t use decimal points in Celsius. It was never a comfortable temperature inside. This article explains the problems with Celsius from a UX perspective. (And how to fix it.) (Found while searching for "Celsius is better for weather." To see what the arguments against F were...)
Gravityloss 5y ago
While the article purports to be honest, this reasoning always seems so backwards. So you set -17.78 or 37.7 C on the scale and then point to "look how ugly that is". Hard to take it seriously.
- Leftium 5y ago
  I think you could pick the "fairly habitable" temperature range in pretty, round C temperatures, then convert to F and the argument would still hold. The main argument is not the prettiness of the numbers, but the need for decimals and negative signs in order to express a useful range. What would you define as a "fairly habitable" temperature range in C? -18C to 38C? That's about 0 to 100 in F. 58 integer C readings vs 101 integer F readings; 100 expressed as 2-digit numbers without negative signs. -20C to 40C? That's about -4 to 104 in F 62 integer C readings vs 109 integer F readings; 100 expressed as 2-digit numbers without a negative sign.
  - Gravityloss 5y ago
    Yeah here the temperature is from -30 to about +38 . Most years probably -20 to +30. Survivable if you have the right equipment, depends on how long you have to spend outside though. I don't know what those are in other units. I bet one could find round numbers that are pretty close to some actual exact climatic values that are some decimals anyway, whatever scale one used. Around 20 is most comfortable. I've heard the theory that happiness peaks at 15 but it's a bit cold to my taste. I know there's ice on the roads so cyclists should beware if the temperature drops below 0 C. Or sometimes it happens if it's +2 in the morning but it was freezing in the night. Same for winter tires in cars. Or if one starts nitpicking, maybe there's some undercooled water that's raining so things freeze even in positive temperatures. But that's rare. Whatever, there's a tolerance for reasonable people.
    - Leftium 5y ago
      OK, so: -30C to +38C is -22.0F to +100.4F exactly. Celsius can only represent 56% of your "habitable scale" without a negative sign. Fahrenheit can express 83% of the same scale without a negative sign. 1 degree C is equal to 1.47% of your "habitable scale'. 1 degree F is 0.82% of the same scale. Nearly twice as much precision (1.8X to be exact). Yes, you can add a decimal point and negative sign, but that takes more space and costs extra money. So most appliances I've seen in Korea forego the extra decimal point, resulting in less control/precision of your appliances. Plus if you do add an extra decimal, you get even more precision in F. I would actually argue the extra decimal would add more precision than you want, anyways. (Imagine LED digits like on a calculator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-segment_display https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-segment_display) Even if you use 2C = 2*Celcius, F still has a slightly more efficient range. Another way to look at is your hardware can display 39C to 99C, but that range is "wasted" because humans cannot survive in those air temperatures.
      - Gravityloss 5y ago
        This argument doesn't work. For example you need more digits for Fahrenheit if you include the over 100 F range. An outside thermometer typically does not go to 100 C. IIRC my car thermostat goes from 18 C (below that is "max cooling") to probably 30 C in half C increments. There you could save a digit if you used Fahrenheit. Big deal? There's not much of a difference either way.
        Leftium 5y ago
        In the cases where you need to go over 99F, Fahrenheit does not need a full digit. You only need two thin segments for the "1." Or you can double it up with the negative sign. It's big enough of a deal that most appliances don't include the extra digit. Whether it be for design aesthetics or additional manufacturing cost. It's big enough of a deal that the article's author complained about not being able to set their thermostat to a comfortable level. > I started writing this because of a thermostat in Australia that didn’t use decimal points in Celsius. It was never a comfortable temperature inside. And 0.5C may not seem like a big difference, but if people could comfortably set their appliances 0.5C degrees lower it could save a lot of energy.
hilbert42 5y ago
You know that there's something seriously wrong with this article just by reading the following quote: "Imagine turning up your radio one notch and having the volume increase 50 decibels—NPR ASMR to full death metal. It’s jarring. Similarly, Celsius as a scale, has decided to measure a huge range of temperatures inside it’s famous book ends. Freezing point to boiling point of water—these are not habitable human temperatures and a makes a jump in one degree a large environmental change." 50 dB represents a power ratio of 100,000:1 or an amplitude (say voltage) ratio of 316.2:1. Fahrenheit to Celsius is only a bit over 2:1. If this is not gross exaggeration then I don't know what is! Frankly, this statement is past exaggeration, it's in the world of fantasy. Check the figures here for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel I've read many such comments before but not one so outrageously stupid. This article follows the typical Celsius/Metric envy of many Fahrenheit (US and Imperial) users who've not come to terms with the modern world. This is a 'disease' of certain parts of the Anglophone world—specifically the US, Canada and the UK with the US being the standout (it has the full-blown disease par excellence)—for at least Canada and the UK have dual standards—Imperial and Metric (backwards they may be but at least they acknowledge the metric system) even if they do not use it (miles/hour being the norm!). Tut, tut, tut! The US is unique by having a system that doesn't even fully equate to the Imperial system. Over the years this has led to some monumental booboos such as aircraft crossing the Atlantic and crashing before reaching Europe because the US gallon is smaller than the Imperial one. Oh and I can't but help rub in NASA's monumental fuck-up over the Hubble space Telescope mirror because someone wasn't thinking Metric (remember science IS metric, everything is in SI units). Just take five minutes to take a look at this unholy—unmitigated mess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units These grossly outdated measurement systems have their roots in the ancient Winchester UK units that go back to the middle ages—even to the time of the Norman Conquest. Just take a look at them: what's a rod, chain, perch, minim, US shot, US gill, US cup, teaspoon, stone, foot-poundal and so on? I'll bet most US citizens haven't a clue what these measurements are let alone know how to convert between them. Nothing is consistent about them, nothing is logical—it's a total unadulterated mess! Even a horse's height is measured in an antiquated measurement called hands (4"). OK, you can easily say I've a damn hide to criticize both the Imperial and US Customary Units and please feel free to do so (no doubt there will be downvotes from the counties that use them). However let me say this in my defense. During the formative years of my education I knew nothing of the Metric System—that was until I got to high school and learned about them in science. Even then, I had to learn dual systems: the Imperial System and both Metric Systems—the Gaussian/CGS System and the MKS (now SI) System and we had to convert between them (even in school examinations). Having to learn both system thoroughly and learning Newton's laws in foot-poundals, slugs etc. was unnecessary torture. It was clear to every kid in the school that did science that the Metric System was just so much better (and easier to learn) than the antiquated Imperial System. Back to day-to-day existence. Temperature on the radio/TV etc. was always in Fahrenheit, weight was in stone, pounds and ounces, liquids were pints, quarts, and gallons (Imperial not US), etc. Even some pharmaceutical formulations were still in the apothecaries' system, scruples, grains, etc. Anyway, the light dawned and the huge yoke of Imperial Units was lifted from the country in a conversion that took nearly two decades but in practice it was much quicker than that. In the beginning, even a 12" Imperial rule was banned and only 30cm ones could be bought, this was relaxed after everyone was used to the metric system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_Australia Thus, I am a true veteran of both systems and I know well what it takes to convert and I can assure all of you in the US, UK and Canada that it isn't really that difficult. This article is an excuse for a lazy existence—one that is unprepared to the yard work. It's like playing music by chords instead of learning individual notes or reading the score, what the author is saying is just subterfuge. One must initially go hard at conversion, as one sees the negative effects of the UK's soft approach to metrication. Here, we get BBC health programs (Trust Me I'm a Doctor, etc.) and everyone's weight is measured in stones and pounds. These days, no one here younger than my generation even knows what a stone weight is! They're totally perplexed (I'm surprised that the BBC doesn't mention conversions for metrified markets). That said, nothing is perfect and that goes for the Metric System. I grant the author some credence when it comes to certain measurements. Personally, I preferred the Gaussian/CGS units as they are—in my opinion only—easier to use than the MKS system. For example ergs often seems a more practical size than joules (which are often too big), but if you ask the younger generation they will say that I'm old-fashioned (which I acknowledge), and anyway they'd almost certainly wouldn't know what an erg was. Anyway, it's essentially peace at last. I'll never again have to consult those horrible Imperial tables on the back covers of all our school exercise books to know how many chains, perches, poundals etc. go into this or that. If the author of this story could only see how ridiculous he looks in the metrified world then he'd be really embarrassed. [BTW, there's nothing wrong with dual systems, that is keeping one for colloquial usage. And there are still some exceptions (30" TV for instance) but they're few and far between. When I go to a lumber (here timber) yard and meet a guy my age I'll ask for some 4x2" (US: 2x4") and not 100x50 mm. Equally, for anyone younger I'll automatically revert to 100x50 mm to avoid confusion. Let's face it 4x2 or 2x4 slips off the tongue a damn side faster doesn't it? ;-) ]

4 points by Leftium 5y ago

> I started writing this because of a thermostat in Australia that didn’t use decimal points in Celsius. It was never a comfortable temperature inside. This article explains the problems with Celsius from a UX perspective. (And how to fix it.) (Found while searching for "Celsius is better for weather." To see what the arguments against F were...)

Gravityloss 5y ago

While the article purports to be honest, this reasoning always seems so backwards. So you set -17.78 or 37.7 C on the scale and then point to "look how ugly that is". Hard to take it seriously.

Leftium 5y ago
I think you could pick the "fairly habitable" temperature range in pretty, round C temperatures, then convert to F and the argument would still hold. The main argument is not the prettiness of the numbers, but the need for decimals and negative signs in order to express a useful range. What would you define as a "fairly habitable" temperature range in C? -18C to 38C? That's about 0 to 100 in F. 58 integer C readings vs 101 integer F readings; 100 expressed as 2-digit numbers without negative signs. -20C to 40C? That's about -4 to 104 in F 62 integer C readings vs 109 integer F readings; 100 expressed as 2-digit numbers without a negative sign.
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  Yeah here the temperature is from -30 to about +38 . Most years probably -20 to +30. Survivable if you have the right equipment, depends on how long you have to spend outside though. I don't know what those are in other units. I bet one could find round numbers that are pretty close to some actual exact climatic values that are some decimals anyway, whatever scale one used. Around 20 is most comfortable. I've heard the theory that happiness peaks at 15 but it's a bit cold to my taste. I know there's ice on the roads so cyclists should beware if the temperature drops below 0 C. Or sometimes it happens if it's +2 in the morning but it was freezing in the night. Same for winter tires in cars. Or if one starts nitpicking, maybe there's some undercooled water that's raining so things freeze even in positive temperatures. But that's rare. Whatever, there's a tolerance for reasonable people.
  - Leftium 5y ago
    OK, so: -30C to +38C is -22.0F to +100.4F exactly. Celsius can only represent 56% of your "habitable scale" without a negative sign. Fahrenheit can express 83% of the same scale without a negative sign. 1 degree C is equal to 1.47% of your "habitable scale'. 1 degree F is 0.82% of the same scale. Nearly twice as much precision (1.8X to be exact). Yes, you can add a decimal point and negative sign, but that takes more space and costs extra money. So most appliances I've seen in Korea forego the extra decimal point, resulting in less control/precision of your appliances. Plus if you do add an extra decimal, you get even more precision in F. I would actually argue the extra decimal would add more precision than you want, anyways. (Imagine LED digits like on a calculator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-segment_display https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-segment_display) Even if you use 2C = 2*Celcius, F still has a slightly more efficient range. Another way to look at is your hardware can display 39C to 99C, but that range is "wasted" because humans cannot survive in those air temperatures.
    - Gravityloss 5y ago
      This argument doesn't work. For example you need more digits for Fahrenheit if you include the over 100 F range. An outside thermometer typically does not go to 100 C. IIRC my car thermostat goes from 18 C (below that is "max cooling") to probably 30 C in half C increments. There you could save a digit if you used Fahrenheit. Big deal? There's not much of a difference either way.
      - Leftium 5y ago
        In the cases where you need to go over 99F, Fahrenheit does not need a full digit. You only need two thin segments for the "1." Or you can double it up with the negative sign. It's big enough of a deal that most appliances don't include the extra digit. Whether it be for design aesthetics or additional manufacturing cost. It's big enough of a deal that the article's author complained about not being able to set their thermostat to a comfortable level. > I started writing this because of a thermostat in Australia that didn’t use decimal points in Celsius. It was never a comfortable temperature inside. And 0.5C may not seem like a big difference, but if people could comfortably set their appliances 0.5C degrees lower it could save a lot of energy.

hilbert42 5y ago

You know that there's something seriously wrong with this article just by reading the following quote: "Imagine turning up your radio one notch and having the volume increase 50 decibels—NPR ASMR to full death metal. It’s jarring. Similarly, Celsius as a scale, has decided to measure a huge range of temperatures inside it’s famous book ends. Freezing point to boiling point of water—these are not habitable human temperatures and a makes a jump in one degree a large environmental change." 50 dB represents a power ratio of 100,000:1 or an amplitude (say voltage) ratio of 316.2:1. Fahrenheit to Celsius is only a bit over 2:1. If this is not gross exaggeration then I don't know what is! Frankly, this statement is past exaggeration, it's in the world of fantasy. Check the figures here for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel I've read many such comments before but not one so outrageously stupid. This article follows the typical Celsius/Metric envy of many Fahrenheit (US and Imperial) users who've not come to terms with the modern world. This is a 'disease' of certain parts of the Anglophone world—specifically the US, Canada and the UK with the US being the standout (it has the full-blown disease par excellence)—for at least Canada and the UK have dual standards—Imperial and Metric (backwards they may be but at least they acknowledge the metric system) even if they do not use it (miles/hour being the norm!). Tut, tut, tut! The US is unique by having a system that doesn't even fully equate to the Imperial system. Over the years this has led to some monumental booboos such as aircraft crossing the Atlantic and crashing before reaching Europe because the US gallon is smaller than the Imperial one. Oh and I can't but help rub in NASA's monumental fuck-up over the Hubble space Telescope mirror because someone wasn't thinking Metric (remember science IS metric, everything is in SI units). Just take five minutes to take a look at this unholy—unmitigated mess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units These grossly outdated measurement systems have their roots in the ancient Winchester UK units that go back to the middle ages—even to the time of the Norman Conquest. Just take a look at them: what's a rod, chain, perch, minim, US shot, US gill, US cup, teaspoon, stone, foot-poundal and so on? I'll bet most US citizens haven't a clue what these measurements are let alone know how to convert between them. Nothing is consistent about them, nothing is logical—it's a total unadulterated mess! Even a horse's height is measured in an antiquated measurement called hands (4"). OK, you can easily say I've a damn hide to criticize both the Imperial and US Customary Units and please feel free to do so (no doubt there will be downvotes from the counties that use them). However let me say this in my defense. During the formative years of my education I knew nothing of the Metric System—that was until I got to high school and learned about them in science. Even then, I had to learn dual systems: the Imperial System and both Metric Systems—the Gaussian/CGS System and the MKS (now SI) System and we had to convert between them (even in school examinations). Having to learn both system thoroughly and learning Newton's laws in foot-poundals, slugs etc. was unnecessary torture. It was clear to every kid in the school that did science that the Metric System was just so much better (and easier to learn) than the antiquated Imperial System. Back to day-to-day existence. Temperature on the radio/TV etc. was always in Fahrenheit, weight was in stone, pounds and ounces, liquids were pints, quarts, and gallons (Imperial not US), etc. Even some pharmaceutical formulations were still in the apothecaries' system, scruples, grains, etc. Anyway, the light dawned and the huge yoke of Imperial Units was lifted from the country in a conversion that took nearly two decades but in practice it was much quicker than that. In the beginning, even a 12" Imperial rule was banned and only 30cm ones could be bought, this was relaxed after everyone was used to the metric system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_Australia Thus, I am a true veteran of both systems and I know well what it takes to convert and I can assure all of you in the US, UK and Canada that it isn't really that difficult. This article is an excuse for a lazy existence—one that is unprepared to the yard work. It's like playing music by chords instead of learning individual notes or reading the score, what the author is saying is just subterfuge. One must initially go hard at conversion, as one sees the negative effects of the UK's soft approach to metrication. Here, we get BBC health programs (Trust Me I'm a Doctor, etc.) and everyone's weight is measured in stones and pounds. These days, no one here younger than my generation even knows what a stone weight is! They're totally perplexed (I'm surprised that the BBC doesn't mention conversions for metrified markets). That said, nothing is perfect and that goes for the Metric System. I grant the author some credence when it comes to certain measurements. Personally, I preferred the Gaussian/CGS units as they are—in my opinion only—easier to use than the MKS system. For example ergs often seems a more practical size than joules (which are often too big), but if you ask the younger generation they will say that I'm old-fashioned (which I acknowledge), and anyway they'd almost certainly wouldn't know what an erg was. Anyway, it's essentially peace at last. I'll never again have to consult those horrible Imperial tables on the back covers of all our school exercise books to know how many chains, perches, poundals etc. go into this or that. If the author of this story could only see how ridiculous he looks in the metrified world then he'd be really embarrassed. [BTW, there's nothing wrong with dual systems, that is keeping one for colloquial usage. And there are still some exceptions (30" TV for instance) but they're few and far between. When I go to a lumber (here timber) yard and meet a guy my age I'll ask for some 4x2" (US: 2x4") and not 100x50 mm. Equally, for anyone younger I'll automatically revert to 100x50 mm to avoid confusion. Let's face it 4x2 or 2x4 slips off the tongue a damn side faster doesn't it? ;-) ]