EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: RoGeorge on April 01, 2023, 02:59:04 pm
-
Bought yesterday a €10 wall clock from LIDL, mostly because it has passive dial indicators for humidity and temperature.
(https://images.hotukdeals.com/threads/raw/default/3843162_1/re/768x768/qt/60/3843162_1.jpg)
The plan was to hang it on the wall without battery, for its Temp/Humidity indicators only. I don't like the continuous ticking of a clock. However, I've let it run to check if the clock is working, only to discover how much better a dial clock is, in comparison with a digital clock. Not talking about nostalgia here.
It is so much easier to spot the time in a glimpse from the dial, than to read the numbers on a numeric display. :-//
Also, it gives a much better awareness of the pass of time. You get an analog visualization of the time, instead of just different numbers on the same display, as in numeric clocks. With a numeric display you have to make a subtraction to know how much time passed, with a dial you can see the difference, without having to calculate.
Another thing, you won't forget what time was when [insert whatever]. It's easy to recall the image of the clock face to tell what time it was, while for digital clocks I usually forget the numbers even when I want to memorize the time on purpose.
I wonder why is that so.
1. I'm not sure if I perceive these benefits because I was born before wrist digital clocks were a thing, or if it has something to do with the analog representation being better than a numerical one?
2. Could it be because the 7 segments font has a lousy readability?
-
1. I'm not sure if I perceive these benefits because I was born before wrist digital clocks were a thing, or if it has something to do with the analog representation being better than a numerical one?
If you want to see trends or need speedy comprehension and don't need much precision, then analogue displays are often better than digital displays.
Canonical examples:- control panels where all needles should be pointing roughly at the same angle, and you need to quickly spot any that are "out of line".
- artifical horizons, where the changing angle is much more useful than a succession of numbers
-
1. I'm not sure if I perceive these benefits because I was born before wrist digital clocks were a thing, or if it has something to do with the analog representation being better than a numerical one?
If you want to see trends or need speedy comprehension and don't need much precision, then analogue displays are often better than digital displays.
Canonical examples:- control panels where all needles should be pointing roughly at the same angle, and you need to quickly spot any that are "out of line".
- artifical horizons, where the changing angle is much more useful than a succession of numbers
Conversely, I prefer the digital speedometer that many cars offer now. Especially because a speeding offence is defined as an absolute limit (while there is leeway in the UK, this is not uniform and not legally stipulated - 0.1 mph over *is* an offence). But I'd agree analog readouts are better for most other things.
-
1. I'm not sure if I perceive these benefits because I was born before wrist digital clocks were a thing, or if it has something to do with the analog representation being better than a numerical one?
If you want to see trends or need speedy comprehension and don't need much precision, then analogue displays are often better than digital displays.
Canonical examples:- control panels where all needles should be pointing roughly at the same angle, and you need to quickly spot any that are "out of line".
- artifical horizons, where the changing angle is much more useful than a succession of numbers
Conversely, I prefer the digital speedometer that many cars offer now. Especially because a speeding offence is defined as an absolute limit (while there is leeway in the UK, this is not uniform and not legally stipulated - 0.1 mph over *is* an offence). But I'd agree analog readouts are better for most other things.
Check the permissible errors in the values a speedometer displays :) Precision != accuracy :)
-
1) I am an embarrassingly slow reader, which probably affects my opinion.
2) I also prefer dial instruments as, for me, they are faster to read whether it be airspeed, road speed, time, or other conditions. They give a better indication of a trend That is, to tell one minute vs 10 min vs. 1 hour, you need to read the digital but can tell instantly with a dial.
3) Dial instruments can be oriented so "normal" is virtually straight up (or any consistent orientation); digital can't be. That facilitates easy scanning.
-
1. I'm not sure if I perceive these benefits because I was born before wrist digital clocks were a thing, or if it has something to do with the analog representation being better than a numerical one?
If you want to see trends or need speedy comprehension and don't need much precision, then analogue displays are often better than digital displays.
Canonical examples:- control panels where all needles should be pointing roughly at the same angle, and you need to quickly spot any that are "out of line".
- artifical horizons, where the changing angle is much more useful than a succession of numbers
Conversely, I prefer the digital speedometer that many cars offer now. Especially because a speeding offence is defined as an absolute limit (while there is leeway in the UK, this is not uniform and not legally stipulated - 0.1 mph over *is* an offence). But I'd agree analog readouts are better for most other things.
Check the permissible errors in the values a speedometer displays :) Precision != accuracy :)
afair -0/+10% and that has too account for the size of the wheels so it always show on the high side
-
It is so much easier to spot the time in a glimpse from the dial, than to read the numbers on a numeric display. :-//
Depends on what type of clock you grew up with. We barely had any analog clock at home, for example, and now I need to put considerable effort and time into interpreting what the analog clock dial shows, whereas the digital displays are easy to read in a fraction of a second.
The analog clock dial is totally counterintuitive: a day has 24 hours and an hour has 60 minutes which, for me, are both linear sequences, but analog clock tries to represent both as a circle divided into 12 sectors. What a nonsense.
Interestingly enough, car speedometers are the opposite for me: I find digital ones less comfortable to use, because I grew up with analog dials. Preventing speeding tickets isn't relevant, because I don't rely on speedometer where it's important, instead I use the speed limit setting.
-
Never been any good with dial clocks. I always found a challenge to read them. I guess its because I am a slow learner.
Though I do like dial readouts for measurements. In some cases they are more responsive than digital. I find some people get stuck looking at the resolution of the digital display and the noise/flicker. Dials have an ability to smooth that out but still show the trend of the movement, rise and fall.
-
Ok, so it seems both matters. It matters what one get used to (for the dial clock, which is not straightforward), then when it comes to straightforward like a speedometer, everybody agree the analog dial is easier to read.
About remember what time was it, for those who started with numeric display clocks, one more question please: when you have to remember "I've start soldering this PCB at 11:43, let's see how long it takes", do you remember 11:43 like a number, or like a snapshot picture of the display?
-
About remember what time was it, for those who started with numeric display clocks, one more question please: when you have to remember "I've start soldering this PCB at 11:43, let's see how long it takes", do you remember 11:43 like a number, or like a snapshot picture of the display?
Good question. I guess it's a combination of both. Now that I think of it thouroughly, I think that the snapshot is the bigger part of the combination.
-
Check the permissible errors in the values a speedometer displays :) Precision != accuracy :)
The speedometer on my car is within 1 mph of GPS indicated speed.
-
Ok, so it seems both matters. It matters what one get used to (for the dial clock, which is not straightforward), then when it comes to straightforward like a speedometer, everybody agree the analog dial is easier to read.
About remember what time was it, for those who started with numeric display clocks, one more question please: when you have to remember "I've start soldering this PCB at 11:43, let's see how long it takes", do you remember 11:43 like a number, or like a snapshot picture of the display?
Choose the best tool for the specific job. Best => you understand the job's requirements and the relative advantages and disadvantages of each tool.
-
Check the permissible errors in the values a speedometer displays :) Precision != accuracy :)
The speedometer on my car is within 1 mph of GPS indicated speed.
Measured with what tool with what specification?
-
Measured with what tool with what specification?
Measured by timing GPS positions over a period of time using an app, both my iPhone and my previous Android phone showing a GPS speed of 70 mph with the car indicating 70 mph over long periods of time in varying terrain, I have never seen the devices deviate more than 1 mph from the car's indication, with the car showing the higher speed.
There's no reason for a car to show inaccurate readings nowadays, the speedometer is calibrated against the tyres used at the factory and mine is running stock tyres. A wheel has a radius of about 20 inches (508mm) and might lose 8mm over its lifespan which would be 1.5% reduction in radius. So that would put it within 1 mph at 70 mph.
There are some people who seem to rely on the 10% under rule and drive at 77 mph believing they are actually travelling 70 mph. They are probably just lucky because most police forces only enforce at 10%+2mph, but this is only guidance and not law...
-
I disagree more than I normally disagree about nearly anything.
Analog clock is a total disaster, you can't see anything intuitively. The whole feeling of simplicity/intuition is because we have been taught how to read one since we were small kids. A LOT of effort went into that learning process. It's a complex parser.
Why? What is wrong with analog clock. Basically everything:
1) It does not correspond to the natural day-night cycle at all. It does not have 24 hours like the natural cycle. Two cycles are multiplexed into one actual cycle.
2) In most actual clocks that you can buy, the more significant, larger, better visible hand is minute hand. You don't get any rough idea about the time of the day by looking at the minute hand.
3) The minute hand points to some numbers directly. Great idea, you can accurately read the minutes there? Wrong! The numbers say: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. You have to mentally multiple by five to get the minutes.
4) The small hours hand point to... nothing. The hours scale is missing. Not that it matters, the hours scale is accidentally at the wrong place (as explained above).
5) Want to have a rough idea of time, with a quick glance? No way, you see a graphical mess of two hands forming some kind of geometrical shape which means nothing.
I realize most people have probably forgotten how they had to learn the clock at school (or even before). If you don't remember it, you may think it works intuitively. It doesn't. Instead, we run complex parsers in our heads.
But in the end, time is a number. Just like how many apples John gives to Mary, or your math grade, or how long your penis is. Most of the people (especially >90IQ) handle numbers very intuitively. And this is exactly why the digital clock is so much better. There is no mental load, you directly load the number into your brain.
This is not to say analog is not intuitive. Quite the contrary! Analog panel meters are great; you get the approximate value with a quick glance (say, current 0-10A; are we close to overload or not?). We see good analog meters all the time, as in car speedometers, I have nothing to complain. It goes between minimum and maximum (with no strange 24-to-2x12 wrap-around), you will grasp the approximate speed in a nanosecond's glance, and then you can also read the speed accurately enough nearly as quickly as you do with a digital display.
But the analog clock is a colossally bad example of analog meter, because it's ****ed up beyond all repair. Make it 24 hours and remove the minute hand and I will reconsider.
-
I prefer analog clocks over digital. It basically boils down to being able to visualize the relationship between times. That's generally what you need to know from a clock:
- how much time do I have before some event
- how late am I
- how much time did something take
With a digital clock I have to actively do math calculations. Granted, it's usually not much of an effort, but with the analog clock the result comes more naturally for me.
Of course this isn't to say one is better than the other. Like so many things it's ultimately a personal preference.
It's a similar to how a diagram conveys information better than raw numbers for many situations or people. An analog clock is analogous to a pie chart.
-
But the analog clock is a colossally bad example of analog meter, because it's ****ed up beyond all repair. Make it 24 hours and remove the minute hand and I will reconsider.
A 24 hour clock would make sense (and they do exist), but I think overcoming the inertia that 12 hour clocks have would be very difficult. There also seems to be some disagreement about whether mid-day should be at the top or bottom.
And early clocks did have only one hand. I'd guess because it was simpler to make, but also people didn't have the need for as much precision as today. I don't think people 200 years ago started getting upset when a meeting or show was 10 minutes late in starting.
It turns out that there are one handed clocks even today, as one of these 24 hour watches demonstrates:
-
I don't think people 200 years ago started getting upset when a meeting or show was 10 minutes late in starting.
Don't know for meetings, but there was a big need of very precise and accurate timekeeping, for ship navigation away from shore. When at sea, one would need the exact time to calculate the longitude, or else only the latitude can be determined precisely by the stars.
In fact, that's what boosted the precision, the accuracy and the miniaturization of clocks: the need of a ship's "GPS" at sea, about 300 years ago. There was a nice documentary about that:
Nova Lost At Sea: The Search For Longitude PBS Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS-PmsM-6v0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS-PmsM-6v0)
-
Found the docudrama (hours long :D) of the same topic: importance of timekeeping in navigation
Chronoglide Cinema: Longitude (John Harisson)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzAi-SAs-vc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzAi-SAs-vc)
-
That analog dial is best, for glancing at time, quickly.
However, I do use digital clocks, specifically for when doing simple mat exercises. For example stretching right leg, I do 2 minutes, then switch to left leg in stretch position. Not simply for balanced result, but also to keep a sort of gauge or progress check. That's as I do sets of 8 minutes each, then 2 minutes off.
This way, going from 8:02 through 8:10 gets one set; that has 4 pairs of left-right (stretches)...and then move around and prepare for next, 8:12 through 8:20.
Sounds maybe too complex, but it's just 2 through ten each time, and digital display essential.
-
Me too! I disagree more than I normally disagree about nearly anything; with the "opposition" to analog clocks.
Knowing how to read an analog clock , is not unlike learning to walk, speak, solder , read read or wipe one's ass.
Now, regarding people that handle "number intuitively":
Maybe there are people that when someone mentions two and half pizzas all they "see " in ther mind is "2.5"
I see two whole pizzas and half a pizza. With the left half missing.
And when we talk about a full moon, if anyone pictures a 1 in their head, it should be examined :)
We'll talk about a year wheel comprised of 12 slices one for each month some other time,
most likely after |_ o'clock :)
-
Check the permissible errors in the values a speedometer displays :) Precision != accuracy :)
The speedometer on my car is within 1 mph of GPS indicated speed.
With new, larger diameter tyres or worn, smaller diameter tyres?
-
It turns out that there are one handed clocks even today, as one of these 24 hour watches demonstrates:
That zulutime example is completely incomprehensible because it just uses 24 hours but keeps all the other problems (3 hands is even worse than 2), so you still need to run the complex pattern recognition parser in your brain and now the clock is 24-hour clock so the programmed-in-school parser does not work, so it's even worse.
On the other hand, the Svalbard is just excellent! At least I can see the time-of-the-day intuitively in picoseconds. It makes total sense instantly. And the resolution you can read the time is surprisingly good. One would assume the resolution goes down by 120x when one gets rid of the minutes hand and goes to 24-hour face, but clearly this is not the case.
This is because usual clocks with minute hands are poor quality, minute hand is too thick and the mechanism is not rigidly manufactured but loose, the mapping from the mechanism to the scale is not calibrated, so you can only read the "usual" clocks by +/- 2 minute accuracy which is disappointing*. The Svalbard seems to be +/- 5 minutes or so, a VERY good compromise I would say because if you need high-resolution exact time you would obviously use a digital clock for that. The Svalbard would bring the theoretical benefits of analog clocks, intuitive quick glancing of approximate time, into practice.
*) for the same reason I find it totally hilarious that some clocks with such poor minute hands add a third hand for seconds, but it's totally useless because you can't know if the time is 9:40:57 or 9:41:57!
I like to rant about clocks because it's a perfect example of something we take for granted and most of us do not apply the same engineering scrutiny as they usually do with measurement instruments.
-
Analog clock is a total disaster, you can't see anything intuitively. The whole feeling of simplicity/intuition is because we have been taught how to read one since we were small kids. A LOT of effort went into that learning process. It's a complex parser.
It's like learning to ride a bike. It's hard, there is nothing intuitive about maintaining balance on two wheels, and stability would be better if a third was added, and you don't really need that stuff just to survive.
But learning to use complex technology is how we are able to live more comfortably than monkeys :P
Why? What is wrong with analog clock. Basically everything:
1) It does not correspond to the natural day-night cycle at all. It does not have 24 hours like the natural cycle. Two cycles are multiplexed into one actual cycle.
2) In most actual clocks that you can buy, the more significant, larger, better visible hand is minute hand. You don't get any rough idea about the time of the day by looking at the minute hand.
3) The minute hand points to some numbers directly. Great idea, you can accurately read the minutes there? Wrong! The numbers say: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. You have to mentally multiple by five to get the minutes.
4) The small hours hand point to... nothing. The hours scale is missing. Not that it matters, the hours scale is accidentally at the wrong place (as explained above).
5) Want to have a rough idea of time, with a quick glance? No way, you see a graphical mess of two hands forming some kind of geometrical shape which means nothing.
The minutes and seconds hands are longer because they point to the 60 dots outside the circle of hours.
The hours hand is shorter because it points to hours. It should be thicker than the others to make it more visible.
If your analog clock isn't like that, you simply need a better clock.
The multiple hands provide much higher resolution that you could dream of with only one. Although it's spoiled by the seconds being out of sync with minutes in most clocks.
24 hours could be nice. I prefer the 24h system over AM/PM.
The plan was to hang it on the wall without battery, for its Temp/Humidity indicators only. I don't like the continuous ticking of a clock. However, I've let it run to check if the clock is working, only to discover how much better a dial clock is, in comparison with a digital clock. Not talking about nostalgia here.
I have seen tickless clocks, where the seconds hand advances smoothly and silently like the others.
-
For me it is digital clock all the way..
I intuitively know where I am in time based on numbers.
Analog displays are great for transient 0-100% or static 0-100% displays. They are intuitive for that.
It can be dial or bar graph...
Figuring how many minutes to meeting or megabytes till the end of file copy i have left is best left to numbers directly..
-
I have seen tickless clocks, where the seconds hand advances smoothly and silently like the others.
Except for Vetinari clocks. But you can have a digital Vetinari clock too :)
-
1. I'm not sure if I perceive these benefits because I was born before wrist digital clocks were a thing, or if it has something to do with the analog representation being better than a numerical one?
If you want to see trends or need speedy comprehension and don't need much precision, then analogue displays are often better than digital displays.
Canonical examples:- control panels where all needles should be pointing roughly at the same angle, and you need to quickly spot any that are "out of line".
- artifical horizons, where the changing angle is much more useful than a succession of numbers
Conversely, I prefer the digital speedometer that many cars offer now. Especially because a speeding offence is defined as an absolute limit (while there is leeway in the UK, this is not uniform and not legally stipulated - 0.1 mph over *is* an offence). But I'd agree analog readouts are better for most other things.
Check the permissible errors in the values a speedometer displays :) Precision != accuracy :)
afair -0/+10% and that has too account for the size of the wheels so it always show on the high side
Yes. A speedometer may never indicate too low. In my car the speed is consistently 8% too low up to 140km/h (on the dial which is about 130km/h for real). Above the error seems to get a little bit smaller.
-
For me it is digital clock all the way..
I intuitively know where I am in time based on numbers.
I wonder if you really do or if it's just Stockholm Syndrome?
How much time is it from 11:47 to 12:09? Surely you can do the math, but on analog you simply visualize the angle and it can be as meaningful as the number 22.
Of course for any sort of high precision you need the numbers, and digital provides them directly, so it wins there.
-
I have seen tickless clocks, where the seconds hand advances smoothly and silently like the others.
This one ticks, in fact it's quite clever, it has 2 stepper motors, one for the seconds indicator and one for the minutes indicator. the minutes steps precisely 6 times to advance one minute, but the seconds and the minutes indicators have no common gears between them. The hours indicator is driven by gears with the minutes indicator.
The clock has sensors to independently detect 12:00 for the minutes arm and for the seconds arm. Therefore the alignment is always perfect for this particular design. It's funny to observe them moving independently at power up. ;D
There is a routine at power up, each arm seeks the 12:00 position and align themselves (the clock has internal optical sensors for 12:00), then the clock seeks for the signal of a DCF (from Germany) or a MSF (from UK) time radio-beacon to auto-position themselves at the current hour. :o
Here's a 3 minutes video showing the PCB, the gears and the steppers dismantled:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUqvyP1UWj8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUqvyP1UWj8)
-
The digital clock haters would have a heart attack if they saw my kitchen clock
-
The digital clock haters would have a heart attack if they saw my kitchen clock
You are still a prison of that ridiculous 365-24-60-60 system. How about unix timestamp instead? Maybe in hexadecimal if decimal is too normal.
Unix timestamp like second count which resets every midnight would also be interesting.
Or replacing that weird 60 thing with 100 (us mere mortals) or maybe 256 (binary thinkers). Or redefine a second so that instead of 86400 metric seconds per day, you'd have 65536 of New Seconds. 256 New Seconds would form a New Larger Time Unit, 256 of which would be a full day. Time of day could be represented as a simple 4-character hexadecimal, e.g. 7FFF would be just before noon.
-
For me it is digital clock all the way..
I intuitively know where I am in time based on numbers.
I wonder if you really do or if it's just Stockholm Syndrome?
How much time is it from 11:47 to 12:09? Surely you can do the math, but on analog you simply visualize the angle and it can be as meaningful as the number 22.
Of course for any sort of high precision you need the numbers, and digital provides them directly, so it wins there.
Intuition is learned.
In your example I don't do real calculation. It is more like 10 min before and 10 min later so 20 min something (2min error is less than what you get with analog clock and parallax) .... It's guesstimating.
Most of time with estimating time you don't need exact numbers but a time budget. If I need 10 minutes to get somewhere, and need to be there at 17:00, and now is 16:3x or 16:4x something I'm good. If it is 16:5x then I'm going to be late.
With analog clock I need to remember how many degrees or rotation I need to travel and compare it visually to current angle of clock hands and target time. Or you are converting angular notation to numbers, calculate and convert back into angular.. ?
-
The digital clock haters would have a heart attack if they saw my kitchen clock
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/lost-in-progress/?action=dlattach;attach=1752188;image)
That's a nice clock! :-+
Here's one to give a heart attack to any haters, analog or digital alike! ;D
3D printed sundial displays the time digitally
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78I-A7ikXYU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78I-A7ikXYU)
-
Unix timestamp like second count which resets every midnight would also be interesting.
I think you just gave me an idea for my next electronics DIY project.
-
For me it is digital clock all the way..
I intuitively know where I am in time based on numbers.
How often do you need to know the time to the minute?
Very rarely do I benefit from knowing the time is 10:24; usually "coming up to half past 10 is sufficient".
For measuring intervals, digits can be of help. But you don't need a clock for that.
-
Unix timestamp like second count which resets every midnight would also be interesting.
I think you just gave me an idea for my next electronics DIY project.
Tinkering around with Unix timestamp as we speak ;D (because the DCF77 signal is too small here, and I need to have an easy way to set the clock, so I'm trying to make a local DCF77 Tx).
This is another complaint about features lost in progress: manual override (if there is any) usually sucks.
For example this wall-clock has a single press button for manual set. You have to keep it pressed for 3 seconds, and the minute+hours start to move. Only that the move is slow, and takes 1-2 minutes to sweep all the 12 hours. It moves only one direction, so if you pass over the right hour, you have to wait 2 more minutes. And during all this time you have to keep pressed on the back of the clock a minuscule button, with the tip of the pencil, while looking at the front of the clock. You can't tell if you press too hard or too slow. And once you get to the desired hour, the seconds start ticking at a few seconds after releasing the rubber button. It doesn't wait for a manual start. It's impossible to match the seconds properly! :horse:
We've lost proper knobs and buttons, the ones with good tactile feedback.
We've lost the potentiometers, which used to have an absolute position, for never ending rotary encoders.
We've lost forward control and replaced them with tedious visual control loops, where you have to dial a little more, read a number, then dial more maybe, and so on.
Sure, the new controls have their advantages, and can do new things, but we've lost some very good/basic features that were always there as a side effect of the physical objects.
-
That's a nice clock
cheers,its part of a long term project that was ignited by a throw away comment by my school electronics/physics teacher 40+ years ago about binary time.Theirs also its circular brotherbut thats suffering from loosing about a minute a day so needs some attention.And an early build, complete with genuine 80's parts
The half baked plan is a fully binary calendar,only using good ole cmos logic
[attach=1]
-
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/lost-in-progress/?action=dlattach;attach=1752248;image)
:-+
-
I spent a lot of time watching analog clocks in elementary school! When will this class EVER BE OVER>
Many analog clocks use a universal mechanism and there are silent models. I have changed out a couple of mechannisms strictly to reduce noise. Some come with replacement (more stylish) hands. Scroll down on the page:
https://www.amazon.com/XYBHRC-Mechanism-Replacement-Operated-Movement/dp/B0B7NS5MBW (https://www.amazon.com/XYBHRC-Mechanism-Replacement-Operated-Movement/dp/B0B7NS5MBW)
There are many others, Google is your friend.
-
Against the ticking noise of a plastic gears clock, a few drops of oil can reduce the noise close to nothing.
I don't know why they don't grease them from the factory, or at least put some holes in the case, for oiling.
-
I also prefer analog dial clocks generally, with a digital clock I have to read the numbers and process what they mean, with a dial clock I just glance at it and instantly know the time, I don't have to read anything, it's visual.
Same reason a lot of race cars have a row of colored LEDs instead of a tachometer, the precise RPM doesn't matter, the important thing is knowing when you're in the power band and when you're approaching the redline. It's faster to interpret the bargraph than a tachometer.
-
The recent complaints about the second hand disregard what I think seconds hands are usually used for. It's not so that people can know the absolute time down to the second - it's so you can tell when some number of seconds have passed.
Timeless questions like:
- who can hold their breath longest?
- how long can I hold my hand over this candle?
- how fast can I chug this beer?
PS: looks like the Svalbard runs about $150. Might have to get a new watch.
-
I also prefer analog dial clocks generally, with a digital clock I have to read the numbers and process what they mean, with a dial clock I just glance at it and instantly know the time, I don't have to read anything, it's visual.
It's pretty much a matter of what we've been exposed to as kids I think.
Now it's possible that "processing the numbers" may take a tiny bit more effort than processing the dial view for all of us. Or maybe it depends on each individual. Not sure.
One thing that works much better with "analog" displays in general is evaluating variations at a glance.
-
I grew up in the 80s, digital clocks were common by then and we had several in our house, along with several analog clocks. I don't feel all that strongly about it but I do think analog clocks are attractive and when I want to know how long it's been or how long until some event they are definitely faster for me since I don't have to do math. Some of my favorite clocks are nixie tube based which are of course digital. I also have a liking of weird clocks, things like binary clocks and other quirky stuff. I like clocks in general, they can be a combination of kinetic artwork and functional tool.