Why can't people just glance at their wrist when they look down at an opportune time? They seriously think that the unnatural movement of feeling of their watch face is somehow less surreptitious?
The unnatural movement will probably not get noticed, as long as the victim keeps eye-contact and makes vague sounds.
Thank Chance I'm a German, I'm allowed to check the time and use excuses like “I need to leave, I promised to meet Ralf at 17:37”.
If you're seated at a table you can check this watch under the table without anyone noticing it at all.
In the article, they have a BBC journalist who is blind saying that the "social" aspect is more important for him than for a sighted person. The alternative for a blind person is a speaking watch, which is pretty obvious when checked!
Interestingly, this is kind of the reverse of what happened with Braille (developed from a system to allow orders to be given to French soldiers silently at night).
If I wore a watch, I'd wear this one for purely aesthetic reasons.
I like the design, both as a sighted user and an appreciator of universal design.
Verb/noun confusion within the headline is confusing. Try "wristwatch"?
Otherwise, I really like this idea. Handsome to look at, pleasing to touch
Yes, this is truly a great example of UD.
Christ on a bike, their website is fucking horrible. Did someone from Vox make it for them?
Nice watch, though. Thought about buying this when it popped up on Kickstarter.
However, it is also true that you should watch for blind people who are popular with sighted people. What's their end game?
Then again, people have noticed that I check my watch anytime anyone asks me a question.
Yay, glad this got noticed!
I posted about the kickstarter here about a year ago.
I've been very happy with my watch. The hour hand (the outside ball) is a little harder to find and read than the minute hand, but you generally know what hour it is, so it's not as big a deal. And if I wore it constantly, or were blind, I'm sure I'd be able to read it instantly.
and yes, I had the same confusion.
(props to @jsroberts for teaching this word in a recent thread)
But when I look at my watch during conversation, it's usually because I WANT to tell the other person "Dude, this is not enjoyable and it's taking forever. Could we hurry this up a bit?" without saying the words...
The tactile-interface version of the site is really slick though.
Many political pundits believe that conspicuous watch-checking was a major factor for George H. W. Bush losing the white house to Clinton in 1992. Sometimes you just gotta feign interest.
after reading this post i totally wanted one, they are beautiful, that is until i checked out the site and saw that the hour is a second bearing on the side and you cannot tell the time from looking at the face. what? why?
i was hoping that the bearing that told the hour on the front moved towards the next hour over the course of the hour incrementally. that way i could visually or tactilely tell the time down to a reasonable resolution just from the front bearing alone, and the side bearing could be a more precise way to tell the minute when desired. This would increase the functionality/usability tremendously, and be more in line with regular watch faces where the short hand (inside bearing) is hours and the long hand (outside bearing) is minutes. 90% of the time the face bearing would be the only one you'd need to use to tell the time, but the side bearing would be there if you wanted a more accurate minute. that would be super functional, practical, and work well for both the sited and blind/vision impaired.
as it is it is functionally backwards from what I'd find optimal to use, the most important information is de-emphasized in the design. you can't tell the hour by glancing at the face of the watch. oh well...FAIL.
if someone wants to make the reverse of this watch it would be awesome and i would buy it. sad that this one fell short in regards to the most crucial aspect of a watch.
A Ribbon in the Sky?
But it's designed for blind people. They won't be glancing at it. Maybe it works better this way around for them? I'd guess from a touch perspective the smaller inside bearing will have lower resolution, so that's why they put the minutes there? Easier to get a general idea from the hour bearing on the outside?
yes, but even that points to it being backwards. even for blind people you want the higher resolution on the minutes, there are 60 of those hence the need for more resolution, and the lower resolution on the hours, there are only 12 hours, so telling the difference between 12 positions on the small circle and 60 positions on the large circle only makes sense. Also most blind people have a much more sensitive sense of touch, especially if they've learned to read brail.
i've racked my brain as to why anyone would reverse this functionality and any possible reason it could make sense and come up with nothing. for all the reasons i can think of to have it be the oppsite, i can't come up with a single one why it would be this way. maybe a blind person would have a reason i'm not thinking of, but short of that is was just a shortsighted design failure. a large enough failure to take it from omg i have to have it to no thank you in a matter of minutes for me.
i really wanted one until i realized this, then i was just left with a sad empty watch shaped hole in my consumer soul...