I would have to agree with DanBC. Additionally, I am slightly confused as to how the idea/solution you've presented is different than from a military watch that has the numbers (often including the military / 24 hour time) as hour markers. Additionally, some of these even have the minute numbers labeled as well. So, that solves that "problem" (although I tend to agree with DanBC that you are exaggerating the thought process behind telling time).
You also mentioned having a separate minute dial. That also exists. There are watches with multiple dials, some for the seconds, others have dials solely for stopwatch functionality (chronograph watches).
Ultimately, I sort of see what you are saying, but I think if you do some research, you'll see solutions do exist.
Also, part of what makes people love watches (including myself) is the engineering behind them and the beauty of their design. For accuracy and functionality, I'll take my G-Shock over any analog (and automatic/mechanical) watch. However, I don't wear a watch purely for accuracy and functionality. They provide a bit of both, but there is more to it.
My point exactly. You'll use a digital one for accuracy/effectiveness but an analog one for style. Why can't there be watch that combines both advantages? Just because the stuff we use works doesn't mean we should stop thinking about improving things.
Oh, and I mentioned why I don't like the multi-dial approach: your eye still has to search for the hand. There simply is more eye movement involved in reading an analog watch, which is exactly the thing I tried to present a solution for.
Oh okay. Well, if you want a combination, the military-styled watches are it. They use the hands and they have the numbers for hour markers. That is the combination. You have the hands and movement of analog and the numbers of digital. I'm not sure how else you could approach this? Which is why I am confused regarding the solution you're trying to present. If you have a problem with the hands due to your eyes needing to search... the solution is digital watches. Maybe I'm still misunderstanding you though.
> If you have a problem with the hands due to your eyes needing to search... the solution is digital watches.
Yes digital watches do exactly what I want. But why can't there be something like an "analog digital" watch? A watch that is stylish and has the "I could make one of those" thing going for it while still being as effectively readable as a digital one.
The idea I tried to describe in the post (though poorly it seems) is this: Don't make the hands of the watch move but move the dial below. This way your eyes won't have to do searching because they always know where to look for the hand. Now if you have separate dials for hour and minute you will have exactly two places to look at - and those will never change position - like with a digital watch.
This post is mostly negative, and it might be a bit harsh. Sorry in advance.
Your ideas for watches make me want to actively avoid -before I've even seen them - any websites you've been involved in.
You show a fundamental lack of understanding about how people read time that I think you would fail hard with something more complex.
The analogue style face has lasted so long because it is so easy to use. Catching a ball involves a bunch of tricky physics (we've only just developed robots that can do it well) but people don't have to think about it; you throw a ball at them and they jab their arm out. (If they're anything like me they miss the ball.) People don't need to think about watches to tell the time.
There are a few special cases: Young people learning to tell the time, or people with some interesting number-blindness problems, or people with mild learning disabilities.
I'd be interested to hear designs that help those people. But, really, digital watches already exist and are a cheap and simple fix.
To be honest I don't think you really understood what I wanted to say with in that post. I don't believe the analog watch has that long because it's that great usability wise but because it's (relatively speaking) simple to make.
This simpleness is what appeals to most in analog watches - there are no chips involved (at least in mechanical analog watches). You can "get" an analog watch, understand it. There is nothing to get about computer chips. Those things are black boxes of electronic magic to most.
Furthermore just because you are fast at using something doesn't say anything about the quality of the thing you are using. You can learn to live with pretty much any level of pain. And that's why you don't have to actively think about reading a watch. It's a learned thing - just like catching a ball. And still people invented the baseball glove.
You also mentioned having a separate minute dial. That also exists. There are watches with multiple dials, some for the seconds, others have dials solely for stopwatch functionality (chronograph watches).
Ultimately, I sort of see what you are saying, but I think if you do some research, you'll see solutions do exist.
Also, part of what makes people love watches (including myself) is the engineering behind them and the beauty of their design. For accuracy and functionality, I'll take my G-Shock over any analog (and automatic/mechanical) watch. However, I don't wear a watch purely for accuracy and functionality. They provide a bit of both, but there is more to it.