How about this watch face?
For the math geeks, and yes I showed each number solution separately..
I challenge people who come to my desk at times ..
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Learning to tell the time using an analog face, with no numbers or markers.
- Thread starter The Cockney Rebel
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How about this watch face?
For the math geeks, and yes I showed each number solution separately..
I challenge people who come to my desk at times ..
Yeah, that's my thing. Can I read an analog clock? Yes. Do I want to? No.
I wish the Apple Watch designers weren't so obsessed with analog faces. Or at least provided as many digital options as an alternate choice.
Analogue watches seem to be having a bit of a renaissance among people around my age group
Perhaps this is why they are leaning so hard in to that aesthetic
Better yet, why not label the hours 0-23 to avoid ambiguity or verbose am/pm when communicating?
That would be the Egyptians with their 12-hour sundial circa 1500 BC.
While you're there, persuade them to make 10-hour divisions per planet rotation and each having 10-minute sub-divisions and each minute would have 10-second sub-sub divisions.
When you get back, remember to re-calibrate your time machine's measurements.
I´m in the Internet since 1998 and have read trillions of websites and forums and threads.
The fact that grown people cannot read an analog clock is the most astonishing thing I´ve read in all these years.
In Germany we learn it in the age of 9 or 10.
The fact that grown people cannot read an analog clock is the most astonishing thing I´ve read in all these years.
In Germany we learn it in the age of 9 or 10.
Well done for learning to read a clock at that early age.
As for reading posts, the OP clearly stated that they can read an analog clock even if numbers are omitted, as long as there are markings at the hours.
Ask your average 10yo to tell you what time is displayed by this watch. They might give you a fair approximation, but chances are they’ll have to stop and think about it:
Last edited:
A tip for the original poster mentally divide the clock face in quarters(so you know where 12, 3,6, 9 are located), the hour hand is not 3 but a little less than 3, so it is 2.
It's kind of difficult to divide a circle into 10 equal parts. Much easier to divide it into multiples of 2 and 3. Probably why the Egyptians settled on a 12 hour system.
Personally I have always had watches with analog faces so for me it is second nature, not to mention we are taught it from an early age at school. I'd say just use the analog face and in time you'll get used to it with practice.
It is a bit like driving a car, after plenty of practice nobody has to think of what gear to use, you just naturally change into the correct gear subconsciously and it becomes a natural action.
It is a bit like driving a car, after plenty of practice nobody has to think of what gear to use, you just naturally change into the correct gear subconsciously and it becomes a natural action.
That makes sense when there are corresponding tick marks where those hands points to. Without tick marks, the length choices are indifferent as long as they are distinguishable between one another.
By convention the length choices are what they are, so to reverse them, or use some other way to distinguish them, would cause a great deal of confusion
The tick marks are implied even when not physically present. What else would the hands be pointing to?!?!
That's the trouble with this new-fangled technology: when it breaks, it's not even right twice a day!
Best tip is to stand outside away from any artificial light: if you can still see the watch, it is day time, if you can't then it's probably night (or an eclipse). Plus you get weather app functionality: if the watch is wet then its raining, if its covered in ice crystals then it's cold.
Of course, all of us softy snowflake Gen X/Boomers have been spoiled rotten by modern cars with synchromesh gearboxes and self starters, and should be ashamed that we don't know how to double-declutch, how to use the advance/retard lever or use a starting crank without breaking a wrist. /s
Or... just don't bother with those silly form-over-function watch faces with no markings. Not being able to read a sensibly marked clock face may be a problem, not liking an unmarked clock face is (IMHO) a matter of taste. I can tell the time adequately (maybe to the nearest 5 minutes) with no markings - but it's extra mental effort and adds scope for error.
The main attraction that I find with a traditional clock face is that it's a useful aid to making simple time calculations like "what's the time to the nearest quarter hour" or "what time will it be in 20 minutes" - it's not that doing mental arithmetic on digital times is rocket science, it's just that visualising it on a clock face is even easier. Having proper markings helps that...
Heck, I'm a lot older than 10 and I'd have to think longer about it than with proper markings. The square face doesn't help, either. Stupid design. Sure, I can read it, but reading a proper clock face is more comfortable. Why make things harder?
The clock face has survived long past the time when it was dictated by mechanics - because it turns out to be a good way of visualising time and has become widely recognised. That's the whole justification for reproducing it on a digital device - so why not reproduce it properly?
...but then I generally find form-over-function actively unattractive. If I wanted a bit of functionless jewellery on my wrist then there are far prettier things than an Apple Watch (which still reminds me of those early LED wristwatches where you needed both hands to check the time). YMMV.
I always do that 😂 I could never give up loving the new Palette face, it is like Gradient but with three colors.
Or if your Apple Watch is on Silent Mode, you can have it tell the time via haptic.