I don't want to be this guy but analog clocks are easier to process, once you know how to read them. You are looking at a what is essentially a picture so you can gauge the time with just a quick glance. With a digital clock you have to read it and process it like text.
Anecdotally, every one of my first aid and CPR trainers have worn analog watches. They never said that's why they wear them but I've found when trying to do something like count and monitor time, it's easier to have a clear visual indicator to measure time.
Guess I'll be this guy when it comes to analog clocks. I was sadly one of the slow kids in class when it came to learning to read time. It took me years to be able to read the hands "on sight." I'm perfectly fine at it now but there is still a slight hesitation in mentally decoding the picture of a clock to time. Especially if it's one of those clocks with no numbers. On the other hand I've never felt like I had to "read and process" a digital clock.
I love analog watches and I understand mechanically why it has to be this way, but I still sometimes catch myself reading the wrong hour in the last 5 or so minutes because the hour hand is literally pointing at the next hour at that point.
I must not be alone, because "jump hour" watches exist; where they always point directly at the correct hour until the minute hand hits 60 and then they jump to the next hour marker.
lol I guess there is more to it. I've heard that analog clocks are easier to read more than a few times and that has been the case for me, personally. I don't know what to think now.
No arguments from me. I guess I was speaking from the perspective of when I was a kid. At the time even though I knew how to tell time I still preferred digital but now analogue clocks are instantaneous for me
I mean they taught us in elementary school. Sure digital clocks are easier but analog aren’t hard to figure out
I don't want to be this guy but analog clocks are easier to process, once you know how to read them. You are looking at a what is essentially a picture so you can gauge the time with just a quick glance. With a digital clock you have to read it and process it like text.
Anecdotally, every one of my first aid and CPR trainers have worn analog watches. They never said that's why they wear them but I've found when trying to do something like count and monitor time, it's easier to have a clear visual indicator to measure time.
Guess I'll be this guy when it comes to analog clocks. I was sadly one of the slow kids in class when it came to learning to read time. It took me years to be able to read the hands "on sight." I'm perfectly fine at it now but there is still a slight hesitation in mentally decoding the picture of a clock to time. Especially if it's one of those clocks with no numbers. On the other hand I've never felt like I had to "read and process" a digital clock.
I love analog watches and I understand mechanically why it has to be this way, but I still sometimes catch myself reading the wrong hour in the last 5 or so minutes because the hour hand is literally pointing at the next hour at that point.
I must not be alone, because "jump hour" watches exist; where they always point directly at the correct hour until the minute hand hits 60 and then they jump to the next hour marker.
lol I guess there is more to it. I've heard that analog clocks are easier to read more than a few times and that has been the case for me, personally. I don't know what to think now.
No arguments from me. I guess I was speaking from the perspective of when I was a kid. At the time even though I knew how to tell time I still preferred digital but now analogue clocks are instantaneous for me