| General > General Technical Chat |
| Lost in progress |
| (1/9) > >> |
| RoGeorge:
Bought yesterday a €10 wall clock from LIDL, mostly because it has passive dial indicators for humidity and temperature. 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? |
| tggzzz:
--- Quote from: RoGeorge on April 01, 2023, 02:59:04 pm ---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? --- End quote --- 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 |
| tom66:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on April 01, 2023, 03:14:48 pm --- --- Quote from: RoGeorge on April 01, 2023, 02:59:04 pm ---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? --- End quote --- 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 --- End quote --- 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. |
| tggzzz:
--- Quote from: tom66 on April 01, 2023, 03:16:55 pm --- --- Quote from: tggzzz on April 01, 2023, 03:14:48 pm --- --- Quote from: RoGeorge on April 01, 2023, 02:59:04 pm ---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? --- End quote --- 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 --- End quote --- 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. --- End quote --- Check the permissible errors in the values a speedometer displays :) Precision != accuracy :) |
| jpanhalt:
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. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |