Dear Jammie,
Why do telephone keypads start with 123 on the top, but calculators start with 789 on the top? Why can't they be the same? Why were they created opposite of each other in the first place? Which one is superior? Which one do you personally prefer?
Thanks,
Brad
Dear Brad,
I actually looked this up... it's kind of interesting (sorta? if you like this phone stuff?). I don't feel like paraphrasing everything I learned... so I am going to plagiarize for a bit.
Theory #1:
When the touch-tone telephone was being designed in the late 1950s, the calculator and adding-machine designers had already established a layout that had 7, 8 and 9 across the top row. Data-entry professionals, and others who used calculators fairly regularly, were quite adept at navigating these keypads. They could hit the numbers extremely quickly, which was great for data entry, but not so great for dialing a touch-tone phone. The tone-recognition technology could not operate effectively at the speeds at which these specialists could dial the numbers. The telephone designers figured that if they reversed the layout, the dialing speeds would decrease and the tone-recognition would be able to do its job more reliably. This theory has little proof to substantiate it, but it does make sense. Accounts from people who worked for Bell Labs at the time indicate that this theory doesn't hold up.
Theory #2:
A second theory refers to a study done by Bell Labs in 1960. This study involved testing several different telephone-keypad layouts to find out which was easiest to master. After testing several layouts, including one that used two rows with five numbers each and another that used a circular positioning, it was determined that the three-by-three matrix that had 1, 2 and 3 across the top was the easiest for people to use.
Theory #3 (The one I like best):
Before the touch-tone phone, of course, rotary dials were the rule. There is no doubt that the touch-tone key pad was designed to mimic the rotary dial with the "1" on top and the 7-8-9 on the bottom. According to Bob Ford, of AT&T's Bell Laboratories, a second reason was that some phone-company research concluded that this configuration helped eliminate dialing errors. Ford related the story, which may or may not be apocryphal, that when AT&T contemplated the design of their key pad, they called several calculator companies, hoping they would share the research that led them to the opposite configuration. Much to their chargin, AT&T discovered that the calculator companies had conducted no research at all. From our contacts with Sharp and Texas Instruments, two pioneers in the calculator field, it seems that this story could easily be true.
It has also been suggested that if the lower numbers were on the bottom, the alphabet would then start on the bottom and be in reverse alphabetical order, a confusing setup. This might have entered AT&T's thinking, particularly in the "old days" when phone numbers contained only five digits, along with two exchange letters.
----Personally, I think that the companies actually did studies on this to be completely ridiculous. People learn to use QWERTY keyboards just fine and the letters are all over the goddamn place. If you're going to put numbers in some sort of reasonable order, why fucking stress over it like that?
As for why can't they be the same.... well unless you want to start a serious movement, hire some lobbyists, etc... just isn't going to happen. I kind of like them being different though. I think they are both superior in their own ways. I find dialing to be easier with telephone pads and data punching to be easier with calculator pads. My brain just automatically knows which one to use. In fact, my brain is so used to the difference, that I honestly hadn't even noticed that there was a difference until this question. You're so observant, rbcp.
I guess if I had to go back in time and make everyone pick one... the telephone one would probably be the way to go. I don't see why data crunchers couldn't just be fast on a normal pad.
Anyway... thanks for waking my board up a bit!
<3 u,
jammie
