WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
21 - 40 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,516 Posts
Nice fundamental question/discussion for wrist watches. Another benefit of analog, like other members above already pointed out, is that you can roughly see how many hours (12) or minutes (60) ahead and have passed.

Here I want to extend this discussion: for those of you have kids, would you teach your kid to tell time with analog first or with digital first? ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: VNLK

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,286 Posts
Nice fundamental question/discussion for wrist watches. Another benefit of analog, like other members above already pointed out, is that you can roughly see how many hours (12) or minutes (60) ahead and have passed.

Here I want to extend this discussion: for those of you have kids, would you teach your kid to tell time with analog first or with digital first? ;-)
I was taught to read the time on an analog wall clock. 90% kids would be taught the same since the analog wallclock is what most kids will learn to associate with timekeeping. Digital watches and clocks,though simpler, would be alien to most kids at this stage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,119 Posts
An interesting thought.

Yes, we are visual creatures. A significant part of our brain is dedicated to visual recognition and interpretation (it is very sophisticated, as programmers of robots with visual sensors have come to recognize). So yes, you will visually recognize the hands on your watch faster than reading digits.

However...

It's one thing when the hands are at full hour positions (1 o'clock, 2 o'clock, etc), but another when it's fractional (e.g. 1:37pm, 2:23am). There is some interpretation required of the visual recognition. And while a full hour position probably registers faster, I surmise that a fractional hour will take just as much time as reading a digital display.


Upshot? It's all a moot point. The "micro seconds" involved in recognition are so small, the differences are negligible. What's more important is your own desire for visual aesthetic. Some people just feel more comfortable with analog, while others find digital more satisfying.... and then there are some who enjoy both about equally.

For dress, I prefer analog. For everything else, I prefer digital... because it's more versatile (analog-digital makes compromises).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
Nice fundamental question/discussion for wrist watches. Another benefit of analog, like other members above already pointed out, is that you can roughly see how many hours (12) or minutes (60) ahead and have passed.

Here I want to extend this discussion: for those of you have kids, would you teach your kid to tell time with analog first or with digital first? ;-)
My kids are still fairly young and at school, the younger one going through the learning about telling the time recently, and they both went through analogue / clock style representations of time to learn.

Which if you think about it, makes lots of logical sense, in terms of learning about the time of day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,097 Posts
I don't mind either, but I do find analogue easier to convey the concept of the passage of time as the hands sweep around. For example, I find it easier to work out what the time is 6 and a half hours from now on an analogue dial, which can be useful when flying

At the same time, I do think digital's precise nature is really useful for keeping track of things expressed to the exact minute, like train arrival time
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,701 Posts
After wearing my analogue seikos much more recently than my digital g's I actually have a preference now for analogues. For me during a work day, it's like having a gauge which tells me how much of my day has passed. I don't find one more easier or harder to read. Cheers, Will.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
the exact opposite has happened for me. i used to have no preference for either, ie. not giving it a thought either way, just the fact it was nice to break things up by switching formats but then i started getting a few analogues i really loved so i wore them alot, thats when it started to dawn on my how much i relied on a digital. i didnt want to know it was going to be 4 oclock soon or that about 1 hour ago it was about 10:30ish, i need specifics like aalin said, esp. for catching public transport.

i also find when i look at an analogue time i end up looking twice. once to look at the time and the second to actually read the time lol

i do like both tho, def. a time (ha) and place to happily use both and as xevious said, analogue does have a higher perceived prestige which can work in some instances better and digital just seems tougher with the thought of no moving parts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,701 Posts
Here I want to extend this discussion: for those of you have kids, would you teach your kid to tell time with analog first or with digital first? ;-)
of course analogue because its a visual reference and much easier for them to learn since they have no concept of time and are only just learning fractions. theyll be able to learn and understand quicker if the minute hand is pointing up or down/left or right but like most ppl over the age of 5 once you got the basics sorted youre free to choose and swap between the two formats simply because you can.

unless youre implying that ppl with analogues are dummies and need read the time as "the little hand is pointing to the number 2 and the big hand is pointing straight up so it must be...." and they have yet to graduate to a big boys watch hahaha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,701 Posts
I think it's about personal preference, like manual shift vs automatic shift on cars.
terrible analogy. ones for ppl that like driving cars, the other is for ppl that cant drive ;-)

edit: unless you mean one is for those that like being able to the the time and the other is for those that cant tell the time? haha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
The real question is, if an analog watch doesn’t sync will the wearer care since its “about 3:30” anyway?
Most of my analogue watches sync - I nearly always wear an atomic, and any that aren't would have been set by one of my atomics when I picked it up to wear.

The other factor being in many instances I check the time, I'd like to think the watch is spot on, time wise, but I'm often only looking for a general idea of the time.

Many years back, when I was sat at the console of a mainframe, when running jobs on it, you'd have to write the start time when running it (even though what you entered was logged and journaled by the mainframe). And there was a digital clock on the far wall in front of me. That was ideal for that purpose, I can't remember whether that particular clock was set by any particular source, but it was the one that was used to set the mainframe time when it was booted, so at least time was consistent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
550 Posts
Yes I completely agree with this, it's much easier for me to get a feel for how long I've been doing something or how long I have until an appointment when reading my analog watches vs. my digital watches. Also, I get bogged down in the EXACTNESS of time on my digital when it'll say like 7:27:42 but if I glance at Mt analog watch it's like almost 7:30 and that's good enough for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
Yes I completely agree with this, it's much easier for me to get a feel for how long I've been doing something or how long I have until an appointment when reading my analog watches vs. my digital watches. Also, I get bogged down in the EXACTNESS of time on my digital when it'll say like 7:27:42 but if I glance at Mt analog watch it's like almost 7:30 and that's good enough for me.
It's a funny thing, but I think I only have one, running, purely digital watch - which, oddly, I practically never wear.

Most of the time I'm probably wearing an analogue / digital, and apart from my PRW-5100 (the only one that CAN'T be configured to permanently display the digital time), they're the best of both worlds, analogue time for most of the instances I check, and occasionally want the accurate time reading quickly from the digital display.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
terrible analogy. ones for ppl that like driving cars, the other is for ppl that cant drive ;-)

edit: unless you mean one is for those that like being able to the the time and the other is for those that cant tell the time? haha

judging ppl for its personal choices is very wrong
learn manual is obligatory to get a driving license here
eventhough if automatic was cheaper l'd go for it
l think l don't need an analog watch or a manual car just to affirm myself as a superior human being
l can read analog(like a nixon player) but not as fast as a digi but if l wear analog everyday for a month l'm sure l'd read faster than before
but the point is l don't want it
to be fair l'm not trying to start an argue with the oldschool or anti-tech guys
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
judging ppl for its personal choices is very wrong
learn manual is obligatory to get a driving license here
eventhough if automatic was cheaper l'd go for it
l think l don't need an analog watch or a manual car just to affirm myself as a superior human being
l can read analog(like a nixon player) but not as fast as a digi but if l wear analog everyday for a month l'm sure l'd read faster than before
but the point is l don't want it
to be fair l'm not trying to start an argue with the oldschool or anti-tech guys
You've kind done the same yourself, though - you've effectively equated those that don't prefer digitals to being "oldschool or anti-tech"

Truth be told, I don't buy either notion. Driving a manual transmission is a decent skill to have, one that I'd like to maintain and sustain be regularly driving a car with a manual transmission. But for most of my driving? I'd rather be driving an auto.

The problem with a lot of these discussions is people often conflate their perception and preference of attributes on the subject at hand - almost as if it's axiomatic. The reality is, though, that most often the underlying reason such things are foisted, is hubris - quite often at play when similar discussions of aspects like watch sizes are discussed.

Often, it's not that people are products of their time, as is often claimed, moreover that they reject being products of any particular time, and make much of their choices based on pragmatism, as opposed to fashion or whimsy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,523 Posts
this:

▼▼▼▼
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,523 Posts
double post
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,516 Posts
Here I want to extend this discussion: for those of you have kids, would you teach your kid to tell time with analog first or with digital first? ;-)
The reason why I asked that, is because much of the arguments on analog vs. digital depended on your upbringing, i.e. which type of clock you learned first. Whether your brain's able to process faster for 3 moving hands or 4 to 6 numbers as the time, all depends on how your brain was wired at the first place.

In our generation, obviously the first clock we've ever seen would be an analog, so that became our primary way to tell time and digital was just an alternate way to display time. But in this day and age, we are practically surrounded by digital clocks. Think about it, from your cellphone, to your tablet, to your PC, to your car, to even your microwave and stove, all have some kind of digital clock to display time with 4 to 6 numbers. It's not a surprise that kids these days will come into contact with a digital clock first before an analog. Although most schools still have on the wall a 3 hands clock and still have teaching materials for telling time from an analog clock, that's much later when they go to school. So it's depending on the parents to introduce your kids to analog in a young age.
 
21 - 40 of 67 Posts
Top