
Bar charts are faster and more accurate to read on a smartwatch than the radial ring displays that Garmin, Apple and Samsung use for goal progress, according to a review of 51 scientific studies.
- In controlled perception tests, bar charts produced the shortest reading time (318 ms) and the lowest error rate (24%) for goal-progress checks on a smartwatch, ahead of radial bars (397 ms, 26%) and plain text (503 ms, 31%).
- A second study of 32 participants found bars fastest across three exercise-data tasks, although radial bars were slightly more accurate for estimating completion percentages and exercise duration.
- Participants rated the radial designs as more attractive despite their worse performance, which the authors suggest explains why manufacturers default to them.
- In one study, 76% of long-term Fitbit users had never used their historical data to look for trends, and their own estimates of daily step counts were out by roughly 20%.
- Across several studies, showing people they missed a goal made some avoid the app rather than train harder. Arthritis patients using Fitbit data with their physiotherapists reported guilt rather than motivation when targets were missed.
- An experiment with 273 fitness tracker users found that AI-written summaries of activity data scored higher than charts for comparison-based reflection and engagement, though the researchers warned of patronising framing and factual errors.
What it means for watch design
Every major watch platform uses rings for daily goals, and the evidence says that choice favours how the watch face looks over how quickly an athlete can read it mid-session. A bar would give a faster and more accurate read of goal progress, but the rings remain the default on Garmin, Apple and Samsung.
The historical-data finding is more useful. Watch apps are built to check today’s numbers rather than spot patterns across months, so years of wearing a tracker did not translate into accurate self-knowledge for most users in the study. The authors also found that how a missed goal is framed matters more than whether it is shown, since guilt pushed people away from their data rather than towards their training.
Quick answers
Are activity rings less accurate than bar charts on a smartwatch?
Yes. Controlled studies found bar charts are faster to read and produce fewer errors than radial ring displays for goal-progress tasks. Radial designs are rated as more attractive, which is likely why manufacturers prefer them.
Can showing missed goals put athletes off using their watch?
Yes. Several studies found that negative feedback, such as showing unmet targets, made some people avoid checking their app rather than training harder. How a missed goal is framed matters more than whether it is shown.
More research on wearables and training is in the Sports Science hub.
Last Updated on 31 October 2026 by tfk the5krunner

tfk is the founder and author of the5krunner, an independent endurance sports technology publication. With 20 years of hands-on testing of GPS watches and wearables, and competing in triathlons at an international age-group level, tfk provides in-depth expert analysis of fitness technology for serious athletes and endurance sport competitors. See the gear tfk uses. ID
