WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
41 - 60 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
As to why it's taught that way - well you'd like to believe that pedagogy was involved, as opposed to watch forum theorising.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,516 Posts
Same way, do you want to see your speed or read your speed? Or may be just feel it, it all depends. ;-)

Vehicle Car Formula libre Steering wheel Auto part

Vehicle Motor vehicle Car Cockpit Auto part
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
Same way, do you want to see your speed or read your speed? Or may be just feel it, it all depends. ;-)

View attachment 6846722

View attachment 6846754
Thing is, F1 drivers don't really spend much time looking at their speed. They often drive to the beeps, and / or time their shifts to a moving coloured display of lights.

I suspect the first, earlier pic may not have a speedo, main dial is likely a rev counter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,050 Posts
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.
I think this is the case. Like most, I learned early in school to tell the time using examples of an analog clock on the wall. However, I got my first Casio in grade school, probably in the first or second grade. This wired my brain to become accustomed to having the exact time in 3 digits at a glance, and because of this it would always take a moment for me to figure out the time on a traditional clock. I have since adjusted over time, but it did take effort on my part and did not come as naturally as it might have had I never been exposed to digital. Now I enjoy both analog and digital watches, and find that the biggest difference is that when I'm wearing digital I say the exact time, whereas with analog I tend to round it to an approximate time.

On a side note, this thread brings back some nostalgic memories of being fascinated with my Grandmother's bedside clock, which was "digital" but without an electronic display. Instead, it had three discs with printed numbers that rotated to display the time in three digits. I'm not sure why I'm mentioning it, other than this thread for some reason brought it to mind, and I haven't thought of it in years.

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? ;-)
Interesting you should ask. My kids have all worn G-Shocks for a couple of years now, and have obviously been exposed more to digital time over their lives for the reasons you mentioned above. However, I have recently been considering getting each of them a Swatch Sistem 51, both to help them become more accustomed to reading analog time, and to introduce them to the world of automatics in a fun way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,516 Posts
On a side note, this thread brings back some nostalgic memories of being fascinated with my Grandmother's bedside clock, which was "digital" but without an electronic display. Instead, it had three discs with printed numbers that rotated to display the time in three digits. I'm not sure why I'm mentioning it, other than this thread for some reason brought it to mind, and I haven't thought of it in years.
You mean something like this? Or may be you're describing something else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,050 Posts
Yes! Very much like that one except I believe hers had a separate part for the 10's and ones digits on the minutes. Also, hers didn't flip very fast if I remember correctly, so it might have been a slightly different mechanism. Either way, cool video.

Anyhow, I guess it just reminded me that digital readouts were common much earlier than I was considering until I remembered this. Come to think of it, I think my other Grandmother's stove had a similar type of clock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,310 Posts
I like that analog clocks and watches provide a geometrical representation of time. On the other hand, digital clocks and watches make it easier to read the precise time indicated. I have both and use both. I also have several ana-digi watches, which may be the best of both worlds by showing the analog time and digital time simultaneously.

Here is another interesting thread on the subject:

https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/analog-vs-digital-time-perceptions-calculations-888314.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,523 Posts
Which is simply a glib soundbite.

Before they had digital displays, what do you imagine they did? Just estimated everything and dispensed with "facts"?
You obviously misunderstand my point. Of course an analog is just as precise as a digital - make both atomic and you will never notice an aberration, BUT it is how we (the humans) perceive the time. It is very differnt from an analog to a digital and - besides we fully concentrate - on the time shown, an analog dial is rather interpreted (at a glance) than a digital display that clearly shows "cold" numbers - or "facts" if you want to call it that way. It is exactly the reason why a lot of people think that an analog watch is more "intuitive".


cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
You obviously misunderstand my point. Of course an analog is just as precise as a digital - make both atomic and you will never notice an aberration, BUT it is how we (the humans) perceive the time. It is very differnt from an analog to a digital and - besides we fully concentrate - on the time shown, an analog dial is rather interpreted (at a glance) than a digital display that clearly shows "cold" numbers - or "facts" if you want to call it that way. It is exactly the reason why a lot of people think that an analog watch is more "intuitive".


cheers
I didn't misunderstand your quote at all, it IS simply a glib soundbite.

If you actually meant something else, like it's quicker and easier to read a high precision value from a digital display, than an analog one, I'd agree, but that's not what that facile quote says, and words mean something, and if it had have said that it wouldn't be anything like as catchy.

The truth is really sort of in the middle, as it really depends on factors like the information and the context, as the cockpit instrumentation analogy highlights, but the trite words in your sig are simply bogus as is. People could ascertain accurate timings using analog devices, without needing to resort to estimates, as both you and I know. As I said, words mean something, and as written, the ones you choose to quote are simply wrong. That you choose to foist an interpretation and implication behind them, doesn't make them (rather ironically) any more correct.

But kudos to you in not being afraid to brandish them in your sig...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
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.
It seems we have gone a full cycle over the years. My adult son told me years ago when he was at High School, there were one or two kids there who couldn't tell the time with an analog dial clock!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,523 Posts
But kudos to you in not being afraid to brandish them in your sig...
I'm never afraid of anything, but thanks for your post it gave me a good laugh....:-d:-d:-d


cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
I'm never afraid of anything, but thanks for your post it gave me a good laugh....:-d:-d:-d


cheers
If I can brighten somebody's day...

If you took a still photo of both an analogue and digital watch, both showing the time as 10:20 and 20 seconds, both would be accurately displaying the correct time with the same precision. Neither would be "estimating".

People reading the time may well, or may not be, but the watches themselves? Both just displaying the accurate time.

Words mean something.

You ascribe "interpreter" and "facts", wrongly, to two devices showing exactly the same information in different ways. Any "interpretation" isn't by the watches, but potentially in a person reading them.

Words mean something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,123 Posts
With time critical tasks like monitoring RPM and MPH/KPH data at a quick glance or peripheral vision, ANALOG is the ONLY practical choice. So for active sports where just a very quick glance to know time is essential for a person, ANALOG is generally the right choice. In normal circumstances, I think the "read time" difference is really negligible. It all comes down to personal preference.

In my book? Own BOTH. Keep your mind well adjusted to multiple pathways to solve a problem, and your brain will thank you in the long run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,123 Posts
By the way, when I look at a digital OR analog watch, I rarely look at the seconds. It's the hours and minutes that is most commonly of interest. It's only when I'm timing something is where seconds become important. Timing is easier with digital... because your eyes do not have to travel, to find the pointer's location! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,516 Posts
The picture I tried to post got zapped. It was of a Flintstones sundial watch.
This is pretty close, a 24 hours single hand analog. You see your whole day with just 1 dial and 1 hand! But you need to estimate what's the minute strictly from the increments. ;-)


There are plenty of alternative layouts for analogs and digitals. We can spend 100 more pages in this thread, if we want to discuss them all. ;-) But heck, here's an example of a binary watch. There are actually plenty of different design approach for a binary watch / clock. Even as a geek, I can't read them fast enough. ;-)

Watch Technology Electronic device Gadget Digital clock


If you really want to mess up your mind looking at your watch, TokyoFlash is one company that makes a lot of weird watches. ;-)

Light Technology Electric blue Gadget Electronic device Auto part Circle Automotive wheel system Automotive tire Wheel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
373 Posts
Also, when someone asks you for the time, if you are wearing an analog watch, you'd answer "10:30" even if it actually shows 10:32 on the watch.

on a digital watch, you'd answer "5 more seconds to 10:33" :D
I'm wearing an analogue watch now, and I'm always slightly afraid that someone asks me. Having to look the time up under pressure is not that easy. I also don't want to give an answer rounded so much that it is useless. Why would someone ask for the time in 15 minute increments, that seems rather useless. I enjoyed being asked for the time when I still wore a digital watch.

l take more time to read an analog if it doesn't show all the 12 numbers
I find it easy to confuse the hour without such markings. This is relevant when waking up. During the day one usually knows the time within, say 10 to 20 minutes.

Minute marking as in a B-Typ watch is much more useful. I can then tell the time nearly at a glance, seeing that the arm is say 3 increments past the 25 minute marker, 28 in a glance. My present GW-A1000 is a bit un-ergonomic in this regard since the minute markers are at times left out, or ambiguous. Most importantly for the 0/60 minute position.

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.
I don't think so. My child learned the clock in daycare, but didn't have much sense for the time. Now in kindergarten he gets a sense of time and associates it with numbers. For example on a timetable. Whenever a time is written down, it is in a numeric code, say 9:00. He can read that, he can also read the numbers on a digital display. Easy understanding of time. Furthermore, he knows very well what five minutes are. At a digital clock this means simply a 5 minute timer, showing him exactly how much time there is. Or looking only at the time a simple addition. 33 minutes + 5 = 38. On an analogue watch this is much less intuitive. He would have to understand that the hand moving 1/12 circle from the 10 minute position are the same 5 minutes at the 33 minute position. Furthermore, it is very counterintuitive that the minute hand points to the marker with 9 but it doesn't mean 9 minutes but 45.

I think people mostly think that learning the analogue clock face is easier because they learned it that way as a child.


(Not to mention that the conventions used for time, in particular in North America are very counterintuitive. Why does an hour go to 60 minutes? Everything else would have a power of ten. Why is it the same time twice a day (am/pm)? Why 24 hours a day, instead of 10 or 100?
You obviously misunderstand my point. Of course an analog is just as precise as a digital - make both atomic and you will never notice an aberration, BUT it is how we (the humans) perceive the time. It is very differnt from an analog to a digital and - besides we fully concentrate - on the time shown, an analog dial is rather interpreted (at a glance) than a digital display that clearly shows "cold" numbers - or "facts" if you want to call it that way. It is exactly the reason why a lot of people think that an analog watch is more "intuitive".
I don't know what else but 'cold' number a time is, it is a quantitative measure after all. This is also how we communicate time, we say it's 9:30 or 16:32, we don't gesture the positions of hour and minute hand, which we easily could. Even when people gesture the time, they use hand symbols for numbers.

I can read the value from an analogue watch with a little concentration, others might be much much faster. But a digital watch is read at a glance, by everyone who is not analphabet. Since it uses the technique of reading. That goes as fast, or faster, than reading any other text or number, say a speed limit sign.
 
41 - 60 of 67 Posts
Top