Lost in progress

[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]

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

[tom66]

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.

[tggzzz]

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

[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.

[langwadt]

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

[shapirus]

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.

[mendip_discovery]

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.

[RoGeorge]

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?

[shapirus]

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.

[tom66]

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.

[tggzzz]

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.

[tggzzz]

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?

[tom66]

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...

[Siwastaja]

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.

[mwb1100]

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.

[mwb1100]

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:

[RoGeorge]

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

[RoGeorge]

Found the docudrama (hours long ) of the same topic: importance of timekeeping in navigation

Chronoglide Cinema: Longitude (John Harisson)

[RJSV]

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.

[DimitriP]

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 

[Circlotron]

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?

[Siwastaja]

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.

[magic]

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

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.

[2N3055]

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..