Digital vs. Analog
This is something that has been rattling around my brain for some time now:
I really don’t want analog interfaces to die. I don’t want them to turn digital. I want them, just how they are, for certain situations.
First up, cars. I just recently leased a new car (2012 Ford Focus), and of course, maxxed out the tech that it carries. I did this partly because I saw it get introduced at CES 2009, but mostly because I am a giant geek. However, one thing that I made sure to check on, and might have been a deal breaker, was the speedometer and tachometer. If these were digital, I would not have gotten it.
To me, speedos and tachs are things that should always be analog. When cruising at freeway speeds, or bombing down and on-ramp when there is no traffic, digital interfaces do not convey information FAST enough - sure, its clear and legible, and looks great in that typeface, but I need to know how far I am from the redline, and how quickly I am approaching it. Digital interfaces suck at showing the velocity of data - something that my speedo and tach can do, while keeping me (in my opinion) better informed on the single data point “How fast am I going right this second”.
The last time I floored it in a car with a digital speedo and tach (was still a manual), I was missing shifts left and right. Not badly, but I knew that something was off. Going back to an analog interface in my Focus means no missed shifts - I can keep the swinging needle in my peripheral vision, and not have to think at all as to when I need to shift.
Think of a gas gauge - there is a reason that even in tech-heavy hybrids, most still use an analog interface, or a digital equivalent (a bar graph) over displaying any kind of numbers. Why? Because you don’t care about the number - you care about how full the tank is. That is much better represented as a part of a whole (the bar graph), or a swinging dial.
Now, the only evidence I have of this is anecdotal, but think to your own experience - how often are you able to look at a speedometer dial and know exactly how fast you are going, without actually looking at it very long or reading it. It is an interface that does an amazing job of showing you different amounts of data based on how long you have to look at it - if its a glance, you know the rough speed from the angle of the needle. If you stare at it longer, you can ascertain the exact speed, and the velocity of the change in that speed. Same goes for the tach - how annoying would it be to drive a car that did a shit job at telling you what the engine speed is? What would you pick: a visual interface telling you “You are at 3000 RPM, rapidly increasing your RPM, and the redline is coming up”, or “You have filled up 75% of the bar about the numerical value of your current speed, and the choppy refresh rate means I have no damn clue how fast you are accel..WHINEMISSEDSHIFTCARHATESYOU”.
Watches are the same way. I much prefer analog watches because, aside from being classic, timeless, and beautiful, they are also excellent at conveying different amounts of data based on observation length. Now, we don’t really care about the velocity of time, since it is usually static (and if it is not, stop looking at your watch). However, I have yet to see a digital timepiece that allows me to know the time as quickly as a watch does. Sure, this is an acquired skill, but even someone who grew up on digital watches could not beat me in a race (both watches face down on the table, no other clocks, we did it a few times) to know the time. I think that a lot of this stems from digital watches doing to much, and not being standard - its easy for Casio to make whatever digital interface they want, and apply whatever UI to it they want, but most analog makers do not screw around with “12 on top, hands move clockwise” - meaning that I can tell the time on just about any analog watch within microseconds of seeing it for the first time. Try that with a digital interface.
Lets not count analog interfaces out yet, world. They are often better than you think
