The Case For Better Watch Typography | Hacker News Reader

The Case For Better Watch Typography

hodinkee.com

59 pointswell_i_never41 comments

The article diplomatically doesn't show any examples of the terrible typography foisted on other watches, but it doesn't take much browsing around Hodinkee to find examples.

Like the stretched SAT DEC on this Patek Philippe: https://hodinkee.imgix.net/uploads/images/cf044e7b-7239-44a7...

Or this 'Word Art meets Mickey Mouse' Omega: https://hodinkee.imgix.net/shop/images/bf1f83ff-b964-4a98-a9...

(edit:) Here's another good piece on the same subject:

https://watchesbysjx.com/2015/08/editorial-why-fonts-and-typ...

Lots of lovely typography at the top, but search the page for "questionable" to find a real horror.

Very few watchmakers, even at the top of the range, seem to get typography right when it comes to day/date/month windows. They just print whatever gets the information across and call it a day. At best, they might match the color and add a border around the window. It's almost as if they only care about designing the top layer of the dial.

The only well-known brand that consistently seems to get it right is A. Lange & Sohne, which totally makes sense because prominent numerical displays are one of the distinguishing features of their style.

Japanese brands are even worse. Take any complicated Citizen watch and you'll instantly recognize the "Eco-Drive" label in italic Arial/Helvetica with awkward kerning. Every element is printed in a random font that looks suspiciously similar to one of the Windows default fonts. The margins are all over the place, too. Seiko is somewhat better, but only because they usually don't print as many letters and numbers on the dial.

This article already mentions Nomos, but they always nail their date windows.

https://i.imgur.com/xxsxruT.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/MPPtITv.jpg

    Japanese brands are even worse.

It's polarizing, but a lot of people (including me) absolutely love the "wall of unnecessary text" on some Casio models. I can't defend it on any logical level, but I'm certainly not alone.

https://www.watchuseek.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,onerror...

https://bladereviews.com/images/casio/img-casio-dw-5600-01.j...

    Take any complicated Citizen watch and you'll 
    instantly recognize the "Eco-Drive" label in 
    italic Arial/Helvetica with awkward kerning.

I agree, and I think it's just so baffling and frustrating.

Their use of solar (quartz) movements means that a lot of enthusiasts have no interest in them, but I think they make a lot of the best watches under $500USD. However that Eco-Drive logo is just so basic. A minor tweak to that Eco-Drive logo alone would do wonders for their brand, I think.

I wonder if the suits in charge of Citizen realize how bad/boring that logo is. I think they honestly may be blind to it, just as Western suits might be blind to typographical issues when they look at kanji characters.

At least Casio is consistent. Notice how all the text in your photos is set in the same typeface, despite the variation in size, color, and styling. You could call it "Casio Sans". It probably comes attached to a detailed style guide. It's so much better than the soup of random fonts that Citizen and Seiko tend to use.

> It's polarizing, but a lot of people (including me) absolutely love the "wall of unnecessary text" on some Casio models. I can't defend it on any logical level, but I'm certainly not alone.

For people who grew up wearing the famous low-cost Casio F-91W [1], I'm guessing it might have something to do with nostalgia.

I know I chuckled when I clicked on those image links and saw the abovementioned "wall of unnecessary text".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F-91W

I love that Omega dial.

> The article diplomatically doesn't show any examples of the terrible typography

It even shows a picture of the all-so (all too?) common Rolex Submariner which bears, after decades of refinements, one of the finest typography out there IMO.

> 'Word Art meets Mickey Mouse'

Whilst that made me chuckle, there's a lot of history behind this (very intentional) typographic style. They're called "Breguet numerals", and are much sought-after by watch collectors. I think they look gorgeous on some of these examples — https://www.italianwatchspotter.com/breguet-numerals/ — although the Omega example you gave is a slightly more contemporary interpretation of them.

An interesting subject, but I couldn’t help but be totally derailed by introduction of Jonathan Hoefler as “designer of famed fonts like Gotham”.

That’s like introducing Thomas Edison as “father of AC power”, or Pepsi as “creators of Coca-Cola”. It might seem like nitpicking, but we’re talking about one of the most famous typefaces in the world[1] and the most dramatic design industry scandal[2] of the 21st century.

[1] https://theoutline.com/post/7356/gotham-font-is-everywhere

[2] https://qz.com/167993/frere-jones-is-suing-hoefler-for-his-h...

Discussion on r/typography: https://www.reddit.com/r/typography/comments/m83d5i/article_...

Similar article (originally linked in Reddit post): https://www.typography.com/fonts/decimal/design-notes

Kind of off-topic but Hoefler didn’t actually design Gotham (and scammed his business partner Frere-Jones who actually designed the Gotham)

The decimal design notes were also linked in the article. An absolutely stunning font.

Do you know what the current state of the Hoefler vs. Frere-Jones is? I love the thorough approach to design they take with their typefaces, but wouldn’t want to license them if I know the original designer got scammed out of his profits.

All of the carefully crafted typefaces featured in the article emphasized recognizable style. None of them emphasized readability.

Personally, I prefer the typeface found on my Timex. It's nothing fancy, but it is very easy to read at a glance.

I think that is fine, most people aren't wearing watches out of practicality reasons. More as a style thing. I guess smartwatches could be considered more practical less stylish.

You’re not paying $65k+ for a watch because it’s utilitarian.

I think you could probably pay someone $40,000 a year to follow you around and tell you what time it is whenever you ask.

These watches last longer than a year.

True, but think of all the complications a regular person could perform that the watch can't.

Watches have complications, but people have complications, maaaaan

Part of the fun of some watch styles (because let's face it, we're overgrown children) is utilitarian aspects we'll never need. Like wearing a 200M or 300M waterproof dive watch to your office job.

Just in case, like, the Navy SEALs suddenly drop into your cubicle and ask you if you'd like to go on some kind of amphibious assault mission on extremely short notice. I mean, they won't. But what if they DID? Wouldn't you want your watch to be up to the task!?

That's why I wear a watch with simple ticks instead of numbers and no complications other than a simple day-of-the-month. I can't stand busy watch faces.

https://www.omegawatches.com/media/catalog/product/cache/a5c...

That linked watch has numbers on it, though.

Like my favourite, the Junghans Max Bill.

https://i.imgur.com/sPaglyW.jpg

There's a version with numerals and the 4 is kinda iconic.

https://www.blackbough.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/junghans-max...

The Junghans Max Bill is the most legible analog watch I’ve ever seen.

https://www.ablogtowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Jung...

You go from inside out “10... 08”. No counting, no distributions.

Edit: Come to think of it you still need to count the offset from the nearest minute hand.

The site blocks hotlinking. Mirror:

https://web.archive.org/web/20181008041959im_/http://www.abl...

It's funny how different people have different ideas about what's legible and usable.

I've never seen that model in person but in general I find skinny silver hands on a white dial tend to be less than ideal for legibility.

And while the numeric minute markers are clever and legible, they seem wholly unnecessary to me -- when looking at an analog clock I'm nearly always going to round it off to the nearest 5 minutes in my head anyway. "Oh, it's almost 4:15" or "Oh, it's about 1:30" etc.

Which is not to say anything you're saying is "wrong!" I just think it's interesting how different people think about time and watches differently. One of my favorite things about the watch hobby.

Interesting that you round. I wish I could just be fine with rounding but if I’m being honest with myself I’m anal-retentive when it comes to time. My clocks have to be atomic-synced too. Maybe I need to go all digital. I agree that black on white would add contrast and improve it.

> Inside The Design The Case For Better Watch Typography

This is how the article's headline reads when the browser does not load a site's custom fonts.

And often there's so much text on the dials. Brand name, automatic, 1000ft, made in X, etc, etc. I find it extremely noisy.

The "8" was very poorly thought-out in my opinion. It has no angles or sharp edges, setting it apart from the other numerals. It'd be better as a full circle on the bottom and a cut 3/4 or 4/5 circle on top.

I wish typography would also be a concern for digital watches, which I find more readable [1], albeit less fashionable.

[1] https://www.watchuseek.com/attachments/garmini-fenix-black-j...

I think that Hermes watch that the article thinks so highly of has an awful typeface. It's cool that they went to the trouble of designing something to work within their design language, but it's totally unreadable. It would have worked better to simply leave the hour marks totally unadorned.

Yeah, I’m not a big fan either. Especially the 6,8 and 9 are super inconsistent with the other numerals.

Instead of relying so heavily on circles, which don’t appear in any of the other numerals, a three quarter circle arc would’ve worked much better. The cut could then sit between the arc and the straight edge. even the eight could have this straight edge between the two arcs, with the ends of the arcs being the respective cut.

Maybe that wasn’t striking enough for the designer, though.

I find it easier to quickly read watches that have minutes printed instead of hours.

I’ve found a similar issue with wall clocks... it’s frustratingly hard to find an option with good type. The double digit numbers tend to throw off the face balance .

All of these comments and the article itself are evidence that there is a “there” there when it comes to typography criticism, but personally (aside from the like 1% most egregious examples) I don’t get what people are talking about when they complain about this sort of thing.

If you want it readable, why analog in the first place?

> If you want it readable, why analog in the first place?

Granting that not everyone learns to "tell time" these days, for those who did, the watch hands instantly convey the (12-hour) time by their positions.

That is, as long as one of the hands is sufficiently longer than the other. Years ago I woke up, looked at my analog watch, saw it was 6:55 a.m., got up, and started shaving, thinking I'd overslept. A few minutes later I looked again: It was actually 10:45 p.m.; I'd been asleep for maybe 30 minutes and had misread the hands. (This was during an at-sea period in the Navy, during which as usual we were all running on not a lot of sleep.)

Incidentally, from your handle, are you a Seekers fan?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZf41UudAbI

Granting that not everyone learns to "tell time" these days

The kids across the street, now 13 and 9, have no idea or have to translate when they ask the time and I tell them it's "ten 'til eleven" or summat. I'm not 100% sure they can read an analog dial without giving it some thought. Smart kids, too, I just don't think there are a lot of analog clocks in their life. The only analog clock in my life is the watch face on my Apple Watch, and I often debate going digital full-time on that one.

In a similar vein, I'm approaching retirement and I can't fully write cursive anymore, and what little is left is sloooow.

I played around with a lot of digital and verbal clock faces when I got my smart watch, but keep coming back to an analog face because it really helps me visualize how time is passing, or how much time I have before I have to do something. I'm not great at math, so maybe it's easier for me to process the change in angle of the minute hand instead of adding or subtracting from a number.

Now that you mention it, there aren't many analog clocks in my house anymore. My grandfather clock needs a spring replaced so it stands still until I can get around to doing that (again), and I don't bother winding my cuckoo clock most days. The rest are mostly watches I don't wear unless my smart watch is charging or too delicate for whatever I'm doing.

You are right :)

I'm just about old enough that I kind of unlearned reading the clock again. I can sure do it, but on blank clock faces without hour marks I have to think a bit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com