We have a mid-century modern starburst clock on the living room wall, something likethis, and my son, now age 25, cannot tell time on it. It has no numbers, just a polished metal face, but the starburst rays correspond to where the numbers would be on a normal analog clock.
Analogue is more accurate in display than digital.
Please attempt to give the sun’s light a precise placement using a digital method.
The analogue method would show the light of the sun shining on the earth and the progress of said light as the earth rotates into and out of it. People who use different tools to navigate, and/or who use digital watches and even mechanical watches, often revert to something that shows the rotation of the earth in/out of the sun’s light because the digital equivalent would be… well, I don’t know.
The digital method would start with time zones, then make more time zones, then more time zones, until we’ve reached an impractical level of time zones. 24 time zones is a digital arrangement.
I know everyone will be fine without analogue displays on clocks, but digital displays are not inherently more accurate or better. Bring up a map of the earth rotating in/out of the sunlight as a supplement to any clock and you’ll discover the value of an analogue display at your side all day. If your life is exclusively lived in your local time zone, you won’t care.
You say “accurate”, not to mention “precise”, when you obviously mean “intuitive”. Your statements make no sense otherwise.
From the anecdotes in this thread, it seems it is multiple hands and/or lack of numerals that are confusing some novices, but I am not convinced that after spending a quota of time familiarizing oneself with both analogue and digital clocks that either one is more intuitive or easier to read than the other. Your mileage may vary.
Ah, so you have one of those quirky 24 hour dials then? I mean, you know the sun doesn’t do a full turn of the sky in 12 hours, right?
Or are you trying to say kids won’t notice the sun rising on one side and setting on the other without having analog clocks, and will if they do have such clocks?
Or perhaps your arguments just don’t make any sense.
Thanks for the replies. FTR today is her 21st birthday! Happy Birthday Hailey!!!
She wants me to help her learn to read an analog clock, I think I can make that happen.
Thanks again.
No, I’m pushing back on the ‘digital is more accurate’ failed argument, because digital is less accurate but easier.
I said the world will be fine if these kids today stick to digital. But let’s avoid the rush to declare it more accurate or better.
.
I’m nearly 50 years old and I still don’t know what “quarter of” means. Is it plus a quarter or minus a quarter? “Of” doesn’t mean anything in this context. Why not just say “to/till” or “after/past”?
Me too. But usually I hear “it’s 10 of”. What? Just say “til” or “after”. Some people think that this is strange to not know this. But I didn’t grow up around people who said this nor even as an adult did I hear it more than once in a great while. It’s like not knowing what “tenon” means when you didn’t grow up around carpenters and rarely had contact with one as an adult.
One advantage of asking someone the time when they have a digital device: They are more likely to say “nine-fifty” or “nine-ten”.
“Quarter of two” is 1:45 in digital time. 