I'd love to see a version of this that didn't go through a "random" phase every few seconds. I'd love to see the actual transitions between the times. I think it would be more subtle, but more elegant. (You might be able to add seconds display to the clock if you wanted it to be more active.)
I was indeed afraid that it would look too static without using "random" phases. Using seconds would be great (I could try to make them look smaller too).
Looking at my source of inspiration (http://www.humanssince1982.com/a-million-times/) you can see that the random phases are way prettier than mine. But it would make the code uglier with a lot of "setTimeout"s, and I wanted to keep it clean.
It would make a nice screen clock if it actually showed the time most of the time. Instead most times when you look at it to see what time it is you have to wait. At that point you're pulling your phone out of your pocket and next thing you know you're reading HN and wasting time.
This is a design piece, inspired by a gallery exhibition that did something similar, but mechanically.
The creator is in this thread and can speak for himself on this, but complaining about it not being a clock you'd actually use really doesn't contribute much.
Those aren't analog clocks. Analog clocks don't have a state where both hands of the clock are horizontal, or where one is pointing south and the other pointing east or west.
It is if you allow for rotation of the hands as well as rotating the entire clock itself. If a clock showing 6:00 is rotated 90 degrees you get horizontal hands. Similarly for rotating a clock that shows 3:00 or 9:00.
Nice trick, you're only using six hours to show the time: four corners, horizontal and vertical. The rest is just random movement to make it look like a complex machine.
It takes about 15 seconds for the clock to cycle. Only three of these seconds are spent actually showing the time. So if I want to know the time I need to sit and wait typically about 10 seconds before I'll know what time it is.
It's cool, but it's upside down. It needs to be a clock first, then cool.
That depends on whether it's priority is to be a clock or a piece of art first. As an artwork, it more than succeeds. In it's current form, prioritizing art seems the correct choice. It takes up a fair chunk of screen real estate. It's the kind of thing you pop up for a bit and look at as a novelty. To be primarily a clock, it will need a more dedicated display. Even if that's just an LCD monitor connected to a Raspberry PI.
Agree. I was initially expecting the "analog" clocks to show the time and he arranged in a way that they formed the digital time. I do think it's cool to look at though
I think that counts as analog, because the hands of the clocks are a continously variable indication. Even if they move in increments of 90 degrees, what's happening in the clock involves measurement, not just counting. That makes it at least partly analog.
I have no idea, the title changed after I posted it and it was "288". It was also originally a "Show HN:" but someone removed it (maybe I was using it wrong, I don't know).
[+] [-] chrisjshull|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MichaelHoste|9 years ago|reply
Looking at my source of inspiration (http://www.humanssince1982.com/a-million-times/) you can see that the random phases are way prettier than mine. But it would make the code uglier with a lot of "setTimeout"s, and I wanted to keep it clean.
[+] [-] joezydeco|9 years ago|reply
http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/88783/build-a-di...
[+] [-] bbcbasic|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dexterdog|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GavinMcG|9 years ago|reply
The creator is in this thread and can speak for himself on this, but complaining about it not being a clock you'd actually use really doesn't contribute much.
[+] [-] Someone|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vanderreeah|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] biot|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Entangled|9 years ago|reply
Kudos.
[+] [-] sly010|9 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbulAxkeMbo
[+] [-] othello|9 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-MxGvtK2Bk
[+] [-] stevefeinstein|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flogic|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kwhitefoot|9 years ago|reply
But still, it really is clever.
[+] [-] ythn|9 years ago|reply
Still, mesmerizing visualization.
[+] [-] S_A_P|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theoh|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Applejinx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jhund|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pimlottc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimnotgym|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orless|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rongway|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knqyf263|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Y_Y|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MichaelHoste|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bbcbasic|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a-real-dinosaur|9 years ago|reply