5 ms·

If my presumption that analog watchfaces are dying and only used for "classical" looks (as evidenced by all those trendy "artistic" watchfaces that frequently d

If my presumption that analog watchfaces are dying and only used for "classical" looks (as evidenced by all those trendy "artistic" watchfaces that frequently don't even have marks), then I suspect it'll be another lie of a generation, just like I've been told to learn how to do math in my head because "there won't be any calculators around". I mean, analog watchfaces are bad at telling precise time - it's just that there wasn't anything better until quite recently (and people are typically fine with 5-minute precision). They're great for conceptualizing time intervals (easy to mentally picture a pie chart), but I strongly suspect most people when asked "when is the next meeting?" are reading time then doing the arithmetic rather than reading the interval directly. I could be wrong, of course.

jedberg 4y ago
Analogue clocks are helpful in low visibility situations. I have one in my bathroom because when I first wake up my vision is too blurry to see the clock, but I can see where the hands are and know what time it is. They are also handy when the clock needs to be far away, like outside in the yard. You can read an analog clock from much farther away than a digital clock because you just need to make out the general positions of the hands. Also, it's a great way to teach kids multiples of five and fractions. :)
- mellavora 4y ago
  And multiples of 12, don't forget that! The Babylonians were masters of division-based math, when the purpose was to divide things up into equal parts. Started to fade from fashion when economics became about making things grow (increase the pie) rather than divide what they had (slice the pie).
berkes 4y ago
While analog watches aren't as precise, they are faster. It takes most people less time to process, as humans (apparently)[1] can interpret an image faster than numbers. For example, 189/304 vs [####__]; the latter is probably faster to process. Also, not related to clocks, but analog gauges in particular: a number lacks an important vector of information: rate of change. [1] https://books.google.nl/books?id=nrtUgKzFhJ4C&pg=SA7-PA16&lpg=SA7-PA16&dq=figure+7.13+altimeter&source=bl&ots=RvImjtYinP&sig=kXL9D27hZtkPPrkw43CNlYIOTMM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8lgjU5aiMYzyoASo6YHIDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=figure%207.13%20altimeter&f=false https://books.google.nl/books?id=nrtUgKzFhJ4C&pg=SA7-PA16&lp...
- divbzero 4y ago
  > For example, 189/304 vs [####__]; the latter is probably faster to process. That’s an excellent analogy. If digital were as quick to process, we would simply have data tables everywhere and no need for data charts.
- drdaeman 4y ago
  Honestly, I have a contradicting personal experience. For me, it takes me an order of magnitude longer to process an analog watchface into a numerical reading, than just glance over a digital watchface directly (over a second versus a few hundred milliseconds). For the progress bars (or, say, tank level gauges) it totally makes sense - I like them the same way you've presented, it's easier to ingest [####__] (or, better, [####__]62%, so it can be also spelled out if someone's asking) than 189/304. Linked book doesn't open for me, but I agree that this also applies to various instruments, especially in aviation, where IFR is of extreme importance. Though for a car I've picked mine specifically based on having a clear large digital speedometer (because unlike on an aircraft, cars 101% rely on seeing outside) and I'm always interested in speedometer reading for answering "how fast I'm going, exactly?" (speed limit comparison is a no-brainer, and with a precise reading I can maintain speed at +/-1mph of the desired target, which is impossible with an analog speedometer) rather than "am I slowing down or speeding up?" (I see this already). But watches - when using for telling time - aren't really gauges, are they? Analog watchfaces can be (and are, by some) used as a gauge when measuring time intervals ("how long had passed", "how much time left"?), but again, like I wrote, I suspect that most people read the time then do the arithmetic rather than imagining a pie chart.
  - mellavora 4y ago
    > , I suspect that most people read the time then do the arithmetic rather than imagining a pie chart. depends how the person was trained, my friend.
    - drdaeman 4y ago
      Of course, yes. And I merely "suspect" rather than have some concrete statistics to back this up. I have this suspicion based on a few anecdotal data points plus the fact that digital watchfaces are becoming more and more common (phones and computers specifically), and people love to do things in an uniform manner. But I'm very biased here (and thus could be wrong), because I strongly dislike classic analog watchfaces. I'm certainly for novel approaches - I do like Apple Watch's "Solar" watchface (the digital version), as it has a digital reading centered in essentially a gauge that shows the Sun's motion, allowing to see the time relative to the daylight. Similarly, I enjoy calendar and weather widgets that show the day as a timeline, so I can see how events or weather conditions approach. But I'm always asking myself "what time is it now?" first (and "ok, how long until...?" only comes after, even if it was the original intent) - it was my mental model for as long as I remember myself - so I strongly prefer digital 24-hour displays.
SamBam 4y ago
> (as evidenced by all those trendy "artistic" watchfaces that frequently don't even have marks) If you grew up reading analog time, these aren't at all hard to read, even to the minute. Really, it's not an affectation, I would find a mark-less analog watch faster to grok than a digital watch. Most people who grew up on analog watches will similar have no problem with them. The only kinds of watches that are more about "rough" time are ones without marks and without a minute hand. Those I can only read to about 15 minutes.

jedberg 4y ago

Analogue clocks are helpful in low visibility situations. I have one in my bathroom because when I first wake up my vision is too blurry to see the clock, but I can see where the hands are and know what time it is. They are also handy when the clock needs to be far away, like outside in the yard. You can read an analog clock from much farther away than a digital clock because you just need to make out the general positions of the hands. Also, it's a great way to teach kids multiples of five and fractions. :)

mellavora 4y ago
And multiples of 12, don't forget that! The Babylonians were masters of division-based math, when the purpose was to divide things up into equal parts. Started to fade from fashion when economics became about making things grow (increase the pie) rather than divide what they had (slice the pie).

berkes 4y ago

While analog watches aren't as precise, they are faster. It takes most people less time to process, as humans (apparently)[1] can interpret an image faster than numbers. For example, 189/304 vs [####__]; the latter is probably faster to process. Also, not related to clocks, but analog gauges in particular: a number lacks an important vector of information: rate of change. [1] https://books.google.nl/books?id=nrtUgKzFhJ4C&pg=SA7-PA16&lpg=SA7-PA16&dq=figure+7.13+altimeter&source=bl&ots=RvImjtYinP&sig=kXL9D27hZtkPPrkw43CNlYIOTMM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8lgjU5aiMYzyoASo6YHIDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=figure%207.13%20altimeter&f=false https://books.google.nl/books?id=nrtUgKzFhJ4C&pg=SA7-PA16&lp...

divbzero 4y ago
> For example, 189/304 vs [####__]; the latter is probably faster to process. That’s an excellent analogy. If digital were as quick to process, we would simply have data tables everywhere and no need for data charts.
drdaeman 4y ago
Honestly, I have a contradicting personal experience. For me, it takes me an order of magnitude longer to process an analog watchface into a numerical reading, than just glance over a digital watchface directly (over a second versus a few hundred milliseconds). For the progress bars (or, say, tank level gauges) it totally makes sense - I like them the same way you've presented, it's easier to ingest [####__] (or, better, [####__]62%, so it can be also spelled out if someone's asking) than 189/304. Linked book doesn't open for me, but I agree that this also applies to various instruments, especially in aviation, where IFR is of extreme importance. Though for a car I've picked mine specifically based on having a clear large digital speedometer (because unlike on an aircraft, cars 101% rely on seeing outside) and I'm always interested in speedometer reading for answering "how fast I'm going, exactly?" (speed limit comparison is a no-brainer, and with a precise reading I can maintain speed at +/-1mph of the desired target, which is impossible with an analog speedometer) rather than "am I slowing down or speeding up?" (I see this already). But watches - when using for telling time - aren't really gauges, are they? Analog watchfaces can be (and are, by some) used as a gauge when measuring time intervals ("how long had passed", "how much time left"?), but again, like I wrote, I suspect that most people read the time then do the arithmetic rather than imagining a pie chart.
- mellavora 4y ago
  > , I suspect that most people read the time then do the arithmetic rather than imagining a pie chart. depends how the person was trained, my friend.
  - drdaeman 4y ago
    Of course, yes. And I merely "suspect" rather than have some concrete statistics to back this up. I have this suspicion based on a few anecdotal data points plus the fact that digital watchfaces are becoming more and more common (phones and computers specifically), and people love to do things in an uniform manner. But I'm very biased here (and thus could be wrong), because I strongly dislike classic analog watchfaces. I'm certainly for novel approaches - I do like Apple Watch's "Solar" watchface (the digital version), as it has a digital reading centered in essentially a gauge that shows the Sun's motion, allowing to see the time relative to the daylight. Similarly, I enjoy calendar and weather widgets that show the day as a timeline, so I can see how events or weather conditions approach. But I'm always asking myself "what time is it now?" first (and "ok, how long until...?" only comes after, even if it was the original intent) - it was my mental model for as long as I remember myself - so I strongly prefer digital 24-hour displays.

SamBam 4y ago

> (as evidenced by all those trendy "artistic" watchfaces that frequently don't even have marks) If you grew up reading analog time, these aren't at all hard to read, even to the minute. Really, it's not an affectation, I would find a mark-less analog watch faster to grok than a digital watch. Most people who grew up on analog watches will similar have no problem with them. The only kinds of watches that are more about "rough" time are ones without marks and without a minute hand. Those I can only read to about 15 minutes.