5 ms·

While reading individual metrics might be easier with numbers, with gauges you can scan the whole system at low precision very quickly. It is also easier to ju

by omeid2 3y ago

While reading individual metrics might be easier with numbers, with gauges you can scan the whole system at low precision very quickly. It is also easier to just see "fuel red", "temperature normal" than 12.5L or 89.5C.

Dalewyn 3y ago
Reading a meter is a two step process for me: I first need to devote some attention to reading the meter, then and only then can I read what the meter is saying. Contrast reading a number: I read the number. Done. One step. Quick and easy. Reading meters is not and never has been fast for me. Even scanning a bunch of meters is hard compared to just scanning a collection of numbers, because I can't tell WTF the meters are saying by just glancing at them. I attribute this to my growing up absolutely surrounded by numbers everywhere I went, in stark contrast to older people who grew up absolutely surrounded by meters everywhere they went. My brain is simply not wired up to read meters. I'm a 21st century man, I read numbers faster and easier. Give me the god damn numbers, thank you; we have the technology now.
- omeid2 3y ago
  > Reading a meter is a two step process for me: I first need to devote some attention to reading the meter, then and only then can I read what the meter is saying. If you really have to "devote some attention" to reading a fuel or temperature gauge, every time, I would avoid driving all together because so much of safe driving depends on scanning and peripheral vision. And I struggle to see how you can't read a gauge which resembles real world as close as possible, you might as well argue that you can't see how much a glass is full or roughly how much ink is left in a pen without a digital indicator.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >And I struggle to see how you can't read a gauge which resembles real world as close as possible, I can read them, eventually given sufficient time. In the context of driving a car, though? I want and need to devote as much of my time to driving the car, not figuring out what the car is telling me. When I read a meter, I first need to see where the needle is pointing; that's one step. Then I need to read the start and end of the meter's range or the closest delimiters to the needle on either sides; that's another step. Then I need to mentally calculate the proportional percentage the needle is showing between those two numbers; that's another step. Then I need to convert that proportional percentage to a number between the delimiters (or ends of the meter range) that I read earlier; this is another step. At this point I can finally read what the hell that bloody meter is telling me. Compare this to a number: I look at the number and I read it. Fin. The difference in time and attention spent is enormous. Whenever I'm driving with just a speedometer, I can't maintain a constant speed because I can't read the meter properly while driving. Whenever I'm driving with a numerical speed readout, I can maintain a constant speed because reading a number is next to no effort. Give me numbers. Please. If you insist on meters, give me the number over or somewhere near it. Just give me the bloody numbers so I don't have to spend so much god damn time and attention that I do not have. Meters are a safety hazard on par with touchscreen controls.
    - zztop44 3y ago
      That’s fascinating! I don’t think I’ve ever had to expend any conscious effort whatsoever to read a car speedo. I guess you’re not an analog watch fan either?
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        I have no real problems reading analog clocks where precision isn't a concern, but those usually have a ~20 years head start of getting accustomed and I'm also usually not concerned about running someone over either. I also agree with most men of culture that analog clock faces absolutely look better than digital. But with that said, if I had to choose strictly on the basis of practicality: I would choose digital clock faces. They're quicker and easier to read, and they're always more precise.
        zztop44 3y ago
        I had a bit more of a think. I overstated my position. I slightly prefer a number display when setting cruise control. It does take me conscious effort to set the cruise control at precisely the level I want without it.
    - fmbb 3y ago
      > When I read a meter, I first need to see where the needle is pointing; that's one step. Then I need to read the start and end of the meter's range or the closest delimiters to the needle on either sides; that's another step. Then I need to mentally calculate the proportional percentage the needle is showing between those two numbers; that's another step. Then I need to convert that proportional percentage to a number between the delimiters (or ends of the meter range) that I read earlier; this is another step. What kind of meters are we talking? Aside from the speedometer what gauges do you need to see exact values of? The temperature gauge roughly stays the same after warming up, and has a red alert level. The RPM gauge has a red alert level and you typically don’t “maintain” a steady level. Modern cars (well, I never drive any with a digital display, only analog gauges) have labels indicating the typical speed limits in the region the car was sold in, no? You should not have to convert or calculate anything. You quickly learn where “40”, “100” etc. are on the meter and you see at a glance where the needle is. Do you change cars often, or need to maintain unconventional speeds? Or are new cars just bad or very complicated? (Mine is a 2002 Toyota) I don’t understand what numbers are missing.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  For speed I agree. It would be way more useful to use the same space for a large numeric display and then I almost don’t need to refocus on it, it may be in peripheral vision while looking at the road. For fuel, meh. Just need to know if it is close to the bottom or not and if the light is on.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
broken-kebab 3y ago
>It is also easier to just see "fuel red", "temperature normal" than 12.5L or 89.5C. Numbers can be red, green, or whatever color is needed. And then it's immediately better scannable than gauge because you just see a color without need to discern a needle position towards an always present colored block.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  This might work for gas, or speed, not so much for a tachometer. It's not just "red", it's where you are relative to red, or how deep in red, and how close to max you are. Its positive feedback when shifting gears (and a joy when you know your transmission)... I can get in a car with a traditional tac and know a lot at a glance, A digital gauge conveys none of this information.
  - nucleardog 3y ago
    An analog gauge also gives you a very quick and intuitive sense of rate of change. It's extremely quick, easy, and intuitive to see an analog tachometer climbing quickly and time a shift properly. If there's anywhere where a precise value would matter, I would have to imagine it would be F1. They are certainly not sticking with analog gauges because "tradition" or "cost". And even if it were only better given an adjustment period or additional training, they would simply have made the switch and the drivers would have adapted. Yet, while there are several variations, every team to my knowledge uses a series of lights which are even _less_ precise than the analog gauges most of us have in our car.
- Karellen 3y ago
  > And then it's immediately better scannable than gauge because you just see a color If you're not color-blind, that is.
- itishappy 3y ago
  If you're running low on gas, but in the high end of the gauge, that's clear at a glance based on the position of the needle within the colored section. This is a much harder task with colored text. You can try using gradients to slowly fade to red, but interpolating colors is significantly harder than glancing at a gauge.

by omeid2 3y ago

Dalewyn 3y ago

Reading a meter is a two step process for me: I first need to devote some attention to reading the meter, then and only then can I read what the meter is saying. Contrast reading a number: I read the number. Done. One step. Quick and easy. Reading meters is not and never has been fast for me. Even scanning a bunch of meters is hard compared to just scanning a collection of numbers, because I can't tell WTF the meters are saying by just glancing at them. I attribute this to my growing up absolutely surrounded by numbers everywhere I went, in stark contrast to older people who grew up absolutely surrounded by meters everywhere they went. My brain is simply not wired up to read meters. I'm a 21st century man, I read numbers faster and easier. Give me the god damn numbers, thank you; we have the technology now.

omeid2 3y ago
> Reading a meter is a two step process for me: I first need to devote some attention to reading the meter, then and only then can I read what the meter is saying. If you really have to "devote some attention" to reading a fuel or temperature gauge, every time, I would avoid driving all together because so much of safe driving depends on scanning and peripheral vision. And I struggle to see how you can't read a gauge which resembles real world as close as possible, you might as well argue that you can't see how much a glass is full or roughly how much ink is left in a pen without a digital indicator.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >And I struggle to see how you can't read a gauge which resembles real world as close as possible, I can read them, eventually given sufficient time. In the context of driving a car, though? I want and need to devote as much of my time to driving the car, not figuring out what the car is telling me. When I read a meter, I first need to see where the needle is pointing; that's one step. Then I need to read the start and end of the meter's range or the closest delimiters to the needle on either sides; that's another step. Then I need to mentally calculate the proportional percentage the needle is showing between those two numbers; that's another step. Then I need to convert that proportional percentage to a number between the delimiters (or ends of the meter range) that I read earlier; this is another step. At this point I can finally read what the hell that bloody meter is telling me. Compare this to a number: I look at the number and I read it. Fin. The difference in time and attention spent is enormous. Whenever I'm driving with just a speedometer, I can't maintain a constant speed because I can't read the meter properly while driving. Whenever I'm driving with a numerical speed readout, I can maintain a constant speed because reading a number is next to no effort. Give me numbers. Please. If you insist on meters, give me the number over or somewhere near it. Just give me the bloody numbers so I don't have to spend so much god damn time and attention that I do not have. Meters are a safety hazard on par with touchscreen controls.
  - zztop44 3y ago
    That’s fascinating! I don’t think I’ve ever had to expend any conscious effort whatsoever to read a car speedo. I guess you’re not an analog watch fan either?
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      I have no real problems reading analog clocks where precision isn't a concern, but those usually have a ~20 years head start of getting accustomed and I'm also usually not concerned about running someone over either. I also agree with most men of culture that analog clock faces absolutely look better than digital. But with that said, if I had to choose strictly on the basis of practicality: I would choose digital clock faces. They're quicker and easier to read, and they're always more precise.
      - zztop44 3y ago
        I had a bit more of a think. I overstated my position. I slightly prefer a number display when setting cruise control. It does take me conscious effort to set the cruise control at precisely the level I want without it.
  - fmbb 3y ago
    > When I read a meter, I first need to see where the needle is pointing; that's one step. Then I need to read the start and end of the meter's range or the closest delimiters to the needle on either sides; that's another step. Then I need to mentally calculate the proportional percentage the needle is showing between those two numbers; that's another step. Then I need to convert that proportional percentage to a number between the delimiters (or ends of the meter range) that I read earlier; this is another step. What kind of meters are we talking? Aside from the speedometer what gauges do you need to see exact values of? The temperature gauge roughly stays the same after warming up, and has a red alert level. The RPM gauge has a red alert level and you typically don’t “maintain” a steady level. Modern cars (well, I never drive any with a digital display, only analog gauges) have labels indicating the typical speed limits in the region the car was sold in, no? You should not have to convert or calculate anything. You quickly learn where “40”, “100” etc. are on the meter and you see at a glance where the needle is. Do you change cars often, or need to maintain unconventional speeds? Or are new cars just bad or very complicated? (Mine is a 2002 Toyota) I don’t understand what numbers are missing.
quickthrower2 3y ago
For speed I agree. It would be way more useful to use the same space for a large numeric display and then I almost don’t need to refocus on it, it may be in peripheral vision while looking at the road. For fuel, meh. Just need to know if it is close to the bottom or not and if the light is on.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

broken-kebab 3y ago

>It is also easier to just see "fuel red", "temperature normal" than 12.5L or 89.5C. Numbers can be red, green, or whatever color is needed. And then it's immediately better scannable than gauge because you just see a color without need to discern a needle position towards an always present colored block.

zer00eyz 3y ago
This might work for gas, or speed, not so much for a tachometer. It's not just "red", it's where you are relative to red, or how deep in red, and how close to max you are. Its positive feedback when shifting gears (and a joy when you know your transmission)... I can get in a car with a traditional tac and know a lot at a glance, A digital gauge conveys none of this information.
- nucleardog 3y ago
  An analog gauge also gives you a very quick and intuitive sense of rate of change. It's extremely quick, easy, and intuitive to see an analog tachometer climbing quickly and time a shift properly. If there's anywhere where a precise value would matter, I would have to imagine it would be F1. They are certainly not sticking with analog gauges because "tradition" or "cost". And even if it were only better given an adjustment period or additional training, they would simply have made the switch and the drivers would have adapted. Yet, while there are several variations, every team to my knowledge uses a series of lights which are even _less_ precise than the analog gauges most of us have in our car.
Karellen 3y ago
> And then it's immediately better scannable than gauge because you just see a color If you're not color-blind, that is.
itishappy 3y ago
If you're running low on gas, but in the high end of the gauge, that's clear at a glance based on the position of the needle within the colored section. This is a much harder task with colored text. You can try using gradients to slowly fade to red, but interpolating colors is significantly harder than glancing at a gauge.