[gmiller123456]

"Bad design" is just your opinion, not objective fact. If every clock were designed specifically for its ability to be read easily, there would only be one type of clock, with high contrast colors, perhaps in different sizes.

Good design involves trade offs. Many of those trade offs are opposing factors like form, function, cost, versatility, etc. And not all of those trade offs are worth it for everyone. E.g. adding a diamond to a watch will increase it's cost many times over and distract from reading the time. But that trade off is worth it for some people. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad design.

[Vervious]

Design is rooted in reality in the sense that it must be functional. My argument is that this particular design is wholly un-functional, and that the diamonds that HN is optimizing for - fancy animations, pretty concentric circles - don't seem to have much value when you think about it. At least diamonds hold their value.

But I suppose, if one finds value in this not-quite-novel-application-of-javascript-animated SVGs, to each their own.

[spectramax]

Good design is about how a thing works, not what it looks like. This calendar and clock does not work well - I am willing to bet my entire life's savings in a psychology study that determines the reaction time to read the date + time of this calendar/clock vs. reading high contrast numbers.

Functional trade-offs for "coolness" - I didn't read that memo in Design school, sorry.

[zentiggr]

I saw this and immediately and intuitively read the face.

It clicked like no other clock design I've ever seen.

I may be in a .001% of people who see this and truly grok it, but that's fine. I'd wear a watch again for this.