To me it seems like the #2 one would be the easiest. Whenever I see 6/4/83 17:34 for example, I have to think about two things: the month corresponding to the number and the year. Now with the new millenium and the new '20' instead of '19' people have to do even more translation in their head.
I'm from England and I agree with Quinn that #2 is the best. This is mainly because you write the full month. In Europe we write the date dd/mm/yy and it can become very confusing when you see the month written in the US format (mm/dd/yy)
Just my £0.02
Fletch
[This message has been edited by adamfletch (edited July 28, 2000).]
For a lot of things now I display the date YYYY-MM-DD HH:NN:SS which I believe is one of the ISO standards. It seems logical to me to go from largest to smallest (Years -> Seconds)
------------------
Karl Austin KDA Web Services
"Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film."
In Lithuania (and I think in some other places in europe) we write like yyyy mm dd or yyyy.mm.dd. In Russia they write like dd.mm.yyyy.
So if you can write the month name just do it. It's easier for everyone cause it doesn't leave a chance for missunderstanding.
------------------
Alan Mendelevich aka ailon ArticleCentral.com - The content directory for web professionals. MEGOPhotos - Quality photos for FREE. UPDATED
Thank for your replies on the subject. I think I may just use #2. However, my initial intent was going to be to let the user choose. Anyone who would see this date would have to be logged in, and thus I could use their local country format as they chose. The dates would be used for something on the lines of a message board; so it woudl be something that they would be looking at a lot.
Also, I have since found something interesting on formating dates: The ISO8601 standard. You can fidn more information at:
I personally like to use DD-MONTH-YYYY or Month dd, YYYY. This is how most databases display the date by default and I figure if it is readable why mess with it.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks