Detecting the movement of the minute hand takes 2-3 minutes, so that's a no-go.
Assessing the size differences of the two nearly similar hands takes anything between 500ms - 5 seconds depending on my mental state, presence or non-presence of background graphics on the clock face, amount of lighting, and so on. Unless I fall into the rabbit hole and start lecturing to my wife about how I enjoy hating the analog clock.
If clock manufacturers understood this issue, they would make a clock with significant size differences in the hands. Like the hours hand would have 5x the thickness of the minute hand. I would hazard a guess that's how clocks looked like hundreds of years ago.
Also the fact that the scales are accidentally swapped and one of them removed does not help. As it stands now, the minute hand points directly into numbers 1,2,3,4,5..., when they should actually read 5,10,15,20,.... Then the hours hand should point into another scale reading 1,2,3,4,5... One of the scales is completely missing from the typical implementation, and the two hands are swapped, i.e. pointing at exactly the wrong scale.
But really, if I want to boil the eggs for 7.5 minutes, I already understand this can be converted into 1.5 analog clock time units - for example, if the hand is showing 5, the eggs are done at 6.5. This seems to work. This is based on observations of how real-world analog clocks are implemented. I don't feel I need to tell the made-up story I was taught in school how it is supposed to work since it clearly doesn't work that way.
I really find analog clock a hilarious joke, or a piece of modern art, not an instrument to provide any idea about time (accurate or approximate) efficiently. But I like to have such piece of amusement in our kitchen.