Why Casio put the "set+" button on the bottom of the watch and the "set- " at the top. It seems completely counter intuitive.
Likes: 0
Why Casio put the "set+" button on the bottom of the watch and the "set- " at the top. It seems completely counter intuitive.
Clockwise -v- anti-clockwise?
Casio: CA-53W-1ER, GW3000B-1A, GW-M5610U-1ER & GW7900-1ER
Rolex: Submariner 14060M
Accurist: 1961 Shockmaster (Gold) & 1965 Shockmaster (Steel)
Omega: Speedmaster Professional 3570.50.00
Meistersinger: Perigraph AM1002
Ben Sherman: S489.OOBS
Rotary: 1990 Quartz (Gold)
Steinhart: Ocean GMT 39mm
Certina: DS Super PH500M & DS PH200M
Timex: MKI Mechanical
It doesn't seem more counter-intuitive than the alternative to me.
If you visualise a list of numbers, for example, the lower ones are at the top.
I get what you're saying, but I can't think of a single other digital control mechanism that does it that wayOriginally Posted by tribe125
This
Imagine if the two buttons were in the same sequence but on the top side of the watch .....they'd appear to be completely normal and intuitive then.
At least they marked 'set-' and 'set+'; in the early days some functions had to be 'discovered' by pushing 2 or 3 times, so that a button may refer to more than one function.
John
If you come to a fork in the road; take it, and then put it down so someone else can use it.
Agree. Does not always make sense, but their is a method behind their madness......At least they marked 'set-' and 'set+'; in the early days some functions had to be 'discovered' by pushing 2 or 3 times, so that a button may refer to more than one function.
"Either He's Dead, Or My Watch Has Stopped....."
Groucho Marx
Out of all the random stuff they print on a G-shock this is the counter-intuitive one?
Just because I like it
Some people have opinions - The rest of us have taste.
BrilliantJust because I like it
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote