[chrkau]

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.

[jaypreneur]

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.

[chrkau]

> 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.