Timeline for How to display duration (HH:MM) so it isn't confused with clock time
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 30, 2015 at 13:48 | comment | added | yo' |
@Mayo I agree, but in that case I would prefer <big>1</big> 1/2 h and <big>3</big> 3/4 h.
|
|
| Mar 26, 2015 at 11:57 | comment | added | Mayo | @Misch - I think it depends on time increments. I've worked at places that only cared about 15 minute increments. If reporting goes down to the minute then the decimal notation x.xxxx would not be a good solution. | |
| Mar 26, 2015 at 8:21 | comment | added | Misch | I absolutely don't agree with this approach! This just confuses the hell ouf of users! Compare 1:55 and 1.916666, what is more readable? I once had to use such a notation, and many people just didn't get it and wrote e.g. 1.40 when they meant 1:40 | |
| Mar 25, 2015 at 21:57 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 25, 2015 at 22:24 | |||||
| Mar 25, 2015 at 21:53 | history | answered | Eric Remer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |