Your pet peeve, technical or otherwise.

[SilverSolder]

Once you know that times ending in 15, 30, 45 and 00 are quarter hours it's pretty easy to visualize relative time.

I seem to manage just fine, but seeing the time on an analogue clock surprises me with it's immediate grasp of progress between the hour, or hour through the day. As I say, if I'm due out at 16:00 and it's 15:45 I know I have 15 mins, but I envision it as 3 x 5mins. Glance at a clock and I think, gosh, I am three-quarters of the way there (or just a quarter of an hour left).

Similarly, at 16:00 I know it's nearly tea time, and 4 hours since lunch, but seeing a clock it's obvious that it's late afternoon and not long to evening. Kind of hard to describe. Perhaps like using a mouse when normally you use the trackpad on a laptop.

The face of the clock provides a context...    E.g. seeing an oil pressure of 100psi on a digital gauge doesn't tell you as much as seeing 100psi on a gauge that goes from 0psi to 200psi!

[PlainName]

The face of the clock provides a context...

That's the phrase I would have used had I thought of it first

[Siwastaja]

The face of the clock provides a context...    E.g. seeing an oil pressure of 100psi on a digital gauge doesn't tell you as much as seeing 100psi on a gauge that goes from 0psi to 200psi!

And if that oil gauge came with three hands, at least two of which were physically very similar size, only to show you the oil pressure with 0.1psi resolution, that gauge wouldn't live longer than a day. It would be replaced immediately by a simple gauge with one hand (like it is now), or by a digital display if that high resolution is necessary, or a combination thereof.

In aircraft, digital + analog combinations have been used for a long time, so that the direction of rotation of the analog hand provides quick, intuitive idea about what is happening, and then the digital number provides exact value. Having hands pointing at whatever directions, some more significant than others, would immediately cause enough crashes so that such instruments would be replaced.

I'm fascinated how people repeatedly tell the story how the analog clock is supposedly quick and easy to read because it simply doesn't match up with the reality I'm observing at all. But maybe the problem is in myself, I admit that. Maybe others can just intuitively distinguish between the minute and hour hands in mere milliseconds and choose the right one to "quickly" visualize the time.

I like this implementation of analog clock:
https://jaykatsaatajat.fi/viisari.htm (no need to read the gibberish text, just look at the picture).

[PlainName]

repeatedly tell the story how the analog clock is supposedly quick and easy to read because it simply doesn't match up with the reality I'm observing at all

The trick is to look at the hand that is relevant. If you're timing a 30-minute egg (yuk) you ignore the little and fast hands. Similarly, if you're interested in how much daylight is left, you ignore the big and fast hands.

<brainwave> Think of it as a multi-turn pot: the number of turns is the coarse reading, the last time round the face/dial/digits is the fine reading </brainwave>

<brainwave> Think of it as a vernier caliper in the round. One presumes you don't have anything against those </brainwave>

[Siwastaja]

Detecting the movement of the minute hand takes 2-3 minutes, so that's a no-go.

Assessing the size differences of the two nearly similar hands takes anything between 500ms - 5 seconds depending on my mental state, presence or non-presence of background graphics on the clock face, amount of lighting, and so on. Unless I fall into the rabbit hole and start lecturing to my wife about how I enjoy hating the analog clock.

If clock manufacturers understood this issue, they would make a clock with significant size differences in the hands. Like the hours hand would have 5x the thickness of the minute hand. I would hazard a guess that's how clocks looked like hundreds of years ago.

Also the fact that the scales are accidentally swapped and one of them removed does not help. As it stands now, the minute hand points directly into numbers 1,2,3,4,5..., when they should actually read 5,10,15,20,.... Then the hours hand should point into another scale reading 1,2,3,4,5... One of the scales is completely missing from the typical implementation, and the two hands are swapped, i.e. pointing at exactly the wrong scale.

But really, if I want to boil the eggs for 7.5 minutes, I already understand this can be converted into 1.5 analog clock time units - for example, if the hand is showing 5, the eggs are done at 6.5. This seems to work. This is based on observations of how real-world analog clocks are implemented. I don't feel I need to tell the made-up story I was taught in school how it is supposed to work since it clearly doesn't work that way.

I really find analog clock a hilarious joke, or a piece of modern art, not an instrument to provide any idea about time (accurate or approximate) efficiently. But I like to have such piece of amusement in our kitchen.

[CatalinaWOW]

Detecting the movement of the minute hand takes 2-3 minutes, so that's a no-go.

Assessing the size differences of the two nearly similar hands takes anything between 500ms - 5 seconds depending on my mental state, presence or non-presence of background graphics on the clock face, amount of lighting, and so on. Unless I fall into the rabbit hole and start lecturing to my wife about how I enjoy hating the analog clock.

If clock manufacturers understood this issue, they would make a clock with significant size differences in the hands. Like the hours hand would have 5x the thickness of the minute hand. I would hazard a guess that's how clocks looked like hundreds of years ago.

Also the fact that the scales are accidentally swapped and one of them removed does not help. As it stands now, the minute hand points directly into numbers 1,2,3,4,5..., when they should actually read 5,10,15,20,.... Then the hours hand should point into another scale reading 1,2,3,4,5... One of the scales is completely missing from the typical implementation, and the two hands are swapped, i.e. pointing at exactly the wrong scale.

But really, if I want to boil the eggs for 7.5 minutes, I already understand this can be converted into 1.5 analog clock time units - for example, if the hand is showing 5, the eggs are done at 6.5. This seems to work. This is based on observations of how real-world analog clocks are implemented. I don't feel I need to tell the made-up story I was taught in school how it is supposed to work since it clearly doesn't work that way.

I really find analog clock a hilarious joke, or a piece of modern art, not an instrument to provide any idea about time (accurate or approximate) efficiently. But I like to have such piece of amusement in our kitchen.

It seems that the problem with analog clocks has much to do with your purchasing decisions, or those who surround you.  While I have seen clocks with the defects you mention, and have even occasionally had the problems you describe, none of the clocks I own has them.  Most of the clocks I encounter do not.  The hour, minute and second hands are clearly identifiable and labels are clear and appropriate. I use both analog and digital clocks and find both have their place.

[SilverSolder]

I guess that digital clocks are now so common that most kids probably don't learn to use an analog one, so it never becomes second nature to them?

[SiliconWizard]

I guess that digital clocks are now so common that most kids probably don't learn to use an analog one, so it never becomes second nature to them?

Yup.

[vk6zgo]

I guess that digital clocks are now so common that most kids probably don't learn to use an analog one, so it never becomes second nature to them?

Yup.

When I was a kid, "digital" clocks were large, hung over city footpaths, & went "clunk!" when the hours & minutes changed.
The upside was they also displayed the day of the week, & the date.

[james_s]

When a jigsaw puzzle is missing a piece. I just finished one last night, 1,000 piece puzzle and one of them missing, ARG!!  It totally triggers my OCD tendencies. No idea what happened but I suspect it fell on the floor and got picked up by the Roomba and into the trash.

[TimFox]

We finished one tonight and thought there was one piece missing--luckily, it was still in the drawstring bag that the manufacturer supplied inside the box.

[Martin Miranda]

humans  , i mean old tantalum caps.

[Cubdriver]

A bit disjointed and rambly as it’s sort of an off-the-cuff video he’s doing, but the timing is good given recent discussions in this thread:


I too find that I can parse time more easily on an analog clock/watch.

-Pat

[SilverSolder]

A bit disjointed and rambly as it’s sort of an off-the-cuff video he’s doing, but the timing is good given recent discussions in this thread:


I too find that I can parse time more easily on an analog clock/watch.

-Pat

On an analog clock, you can instantly see "it's nearly 4" without thinking...  3:37 just isn't quite as fast.

On an analog clock, it makes sense to have 60 minutes in an hour.  On a digital clock...   we really need 100 minutes in an hour for it to make sense! 

[themadhippy]

teaching kids to tell the time

[IDEngineer]

I find that analog gauges are inherently faster to "read" for relative measurements, at the expense of fine detail. Analog gives you an overall view of the entire dynamic range and a relative value/percentage of that range. With a digital display, there is a whole secondary process where you must interpret the value against a (non-displayed) dynamic range and then interpret the result.

Example: Imagine an audio mixing console where each channel's level was represented by a two digit dB value updated every 500mS, instead of an array of discrete LED's or a VU meter. The former would be almost useless except maybe as a peak indicator.

I'd argue that a digital tach in a car would be almost useless for the same reason. The analog gauge instantly communicates where you are in the engine's redline range, a relative relationship that is actually more important than the absolute RPM value.

[IDEngineer]

On an analog clock, it makes sense to have 60 minutes in an hour.  On a digital clock...   we really need 100 minutes in an hour for it to make sense!

Fun fact: On a microwave oven, 61 (":61") is greater than 100 ("1:00").

[Cubdriver]

On an analog clock, you can instantly see "it's nearly 4" without thinking...  3:37 just isn't quite as fast.

On an analog clock, it makes sense to have 60 minutes in an hour.  On a digital clock...   we really need 100 minutes in an hour for it to make sense!

Agreed.  Especially if you have an idea what the expected reading is going to be, I find it easier to glance and see the hand (or pointer, in the case of a gauge) is where you know it should be, your brain can say 'close enough' in an instant.  “I need to leave at 3:55”  A glance at an analog clock at 3:38 shows you have time, and it’s roughly a quarter hour left.  Digital you need to parse that 38 is less than 55, then do the math to find it’s 17 minutes less, then compare that to the 60 minutes in an hour to find it’s about a quarter hour.  Having grown up with analog timepieces, and as one who still wears a watch, this is simply intuitive to me. 

Digital is great for absolute precision, but I find analog is usually better for quick interpretation and comparison.

-Pat

[CatalinaWOW]

Many years ago I was tasked to perform a test which required starting a system when a countdown timer reached zero.  Obviously before such tests were automated.  But late enough that I had the choice of a digital countdown timer or an analog timer.  Both timer had millisecond resolution, obviously much to small for a human to read and respond to time.

I found that I could anticipate the sweep of the fast hand of the analog timer and hit zero with a standard deviation of about 3 milliseconds.  This was verified over dozens of trials, I just don't recall the exact value for the standard deviation.

With the digital timer my accuracy was about an order of magnitude worse.  There were other operators at the time.  All of us had similar results.

They each have their place, but this clearly identifies one of the advantages of analog.

[Cubdriver]

I find that analog gauges are inherently faster to "read" for relative measurements, at the expense of fine detail. Analog gives you an overall view of the entire dynamic range and a relative value/percentage of that range. With a digital display, there is a whole secondary process where you must interpret the value against a (non-displayed) dynamic range and then interpret the result.

Example: Imagine an audio mixing console where each channel's level was represented by a two digit dB value updated every 500mS, instead of an array of discrete LED's or a VU meter. The former would be almost useless except maybe as a peak indicator.

I'd argue that a digital tach in a car would be almost useless for the same reason. The analog gauge instantly communicates where you are in the engine's redline range, a relative relationship that is actually more important than the absolute RPM value.

I still can picture the illustration in a book on the progress of flight that I had as a kid that was discussing gauge layout in the cockpit as we entered the jet age and things became more complicated.  Eventually, human factors started going into the layout, and with things that would have steady readings (say, for instance, hydraulic pressures or bus voltages), rather than putting a bunch of instruments in a neat array with zero at 7:30 and max at 4:30 on the face, requiring they be read individually, they determined it was much better to clock the scales at whatever odd angle might be required to make the pointers all line up horizontally during normal operation.  An aesthetics person would cringe at the seemingly randomly clocked scales, but in operation a system that deviated from the norm would immediately be evident at a glance, and could then be looked at more closely.

Like everything, horses for courses.  Sometimes direct digital readings shine; other times analog is much better suited.  I find the latter to be true for telling time.  (That said, there is a wall clock floating around somewhere in the mess here that my ex bought - it looks pretty, but had an outer ring connected to the main body with a bunch of spokes.  Eight of them, if I remember correctly.  THAT used to mess me up when I tried to read it, and the designer should have been taken to the woodshed for that little layout choice.)

-Pat

[IDEngineer]

I found that I could anticipate the sweep of the fast hand of the analog timer and hit zero with a standard deviation of about 3 milliseconds. With the digital timer my accuracy was about an order of magnitude worse.

That is an excellent example. The immediacy of analog allows you to judge rate of change much easier than digital. Obvious in hindsight!

[SilverSolder]

I found that I could anticipate the sweep of the fast hand of the analog timer and hit zero with a standard deviation of about 3 milliseconds. With the digital timer my accuracy was about an order of magnitude worse.

That is an excellent example. The immediacy of analog allows you to judge rate of change much easier than digital. Obvious in hindsight!

I've gotten pretty good at anticipating the digital display at the petrol station:  I can hit e.g. 2.00 gallons exactly while pumping at full speed and stopping at exactly the right moment.  Obviously that's not done by interpreting the numbers on the display, but instead sensing how fast they are changing (I look at the third digit from the end and time it) - in other words, an analogue approach!

(I use this for filling small cans for garden equipment! - to get the two stroke oil & fuel stabilizer mixes right)

[IDEngineer]

I do the same - but it's utterly dependent on the digital display's update rate. Sometimes it works to your advantage, other times it defeats the goal.

[Circlotron]

I found that I could anticipate the sweep of the fast hand of the analog timer and hit zero with a standard deviation of about 3 milliseconds. With the digital timer my accuracy was about an order of magnitude worse.

That is an excellent example. The immediacy of analog allows you to judge rate of change much easier than digital. Obvious in hindsight!

Similar concept to a drag racing Christmas tree where the timed succession of yellow lights enables the drivers to more accurately anticipate the moment the green light comes on.

[IDEngineer]

Lots of crosswalks have downcounters to tell pedestrians how much time remains for them to cross. But I was blown away in Shenzhen when I saw they had downcounters for the traffic lights! My immediate thought was the drag racing Christmas tree... and that Shenzhen was basically encouraging drivers to anticipate and sprint off the line.

Non-citizens cannot rent a car nor drive in (at least) Shenzhen. After seeing those lights that made more sense.