rev@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (01/03/91)
Hi, folks -
Here is my true brainteaser:
The PC's numeric keypad looks like this:
7 8 9
4 5 6
1 2 3
0
On the other hand the phone looks like this:
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
0
Any idea why the difference:
Peter Revesz,
Cornell MS&E
Revesz@snoopy.tn.cornell.edukoziarz@halibut.nosc.mil (Walter A. Koziarz) (01/03/91)
In article <1991Jan2.124323.1824@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> rev@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >Hi, folks - >Here is my true brainteaser: >The PC's numeric keypad looks like this: > 7 8 9 > 4 5 6 > 1 2 3 > 0 >On the other hand the phone looks like this: > 1 2 3 > 4 5 6 > 7 8 9 > 0 >Any idea why the difference: > Why, yes, as a matter of fact. The PC's numeric pad was 'styled' after the numeric pads found on all sorts of mechanical calculating machines, cash registers, business machines etc. since the PC was intended to be a business machine. I.e. those persons used to keying-in figures with the earlier office machines would 'feel at home'. Counter-question: Why didn't I(nferior) B(ut) M(arketable) pattern the alpha keys on the 'defacto standard keyboard' -- that of the 'Selectric' typewriter??? Walt K.
silver@xrtll.uucp (Hi Ho Silver) (01/06/91)
In article <1991Jan2.124323.1824@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> rev@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
$The PC's numeric keypad looks like this:
$ 7 8 9
$ 4 5 6
$ 1 2 3
$ 0
$On the other hand the phone looks like this:
$ 1 2 3
$ 4 5 6
$ 7 8 9
$ 0
$Any idea why the difference:
Look at your calculator; its keypad looks like this:
7 8 9
4 5 6
1 2 3
0
Now think about whether a computer is more closely related to a
phone or to a calculator :-)
--
__ __ _ | ...!nexus.yorku.edu!xrtll!silver | always
(__ | | | | |_ |_) >----------------------------------< searching
__) | |_ \/ |__ | \ | if you don't like my posts, type | for
_____________________/ find / -print|xargs cat|compress | SNTFdanr@ais.org (Daniel Romanchik) (01/08/91)
In article <1991Jan2.124323.1824@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> rev@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >Hi, folks - > > >Here is my true brainteaser: >The PC's numeric keypad looks like this: > 7 8 9 > 4 5 6 > 1 2 3 > 0 >On the other hand the phone looks like this: > > 1 2 3 > 4 5 6 > 7 8 9 > 0 > > >Any idea why the difference: What the other respondents say is true. The computer keyboard is patterned on the adding machine keyboard. The reason the phone pad is different is that ATT didn't want adding machine wizards to be able to dial a phone number as quickly as they could input numbers to an adding machine. Early TouchTone circuits could not recognize the tones as quickly as they do now. -- Dan Romanchik (danr@irie.ais.org, danr@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us, 313-930-6564) "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." -- Ancient Engineering Maxim
ed@odi.com (Ed Schwalenberg) (01/09/91)
In article <_NL+N+*@irie.ais.org> danr@ais.org (Daniel Romanchik) writes: In article <1991Jan2.124323.1824@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> rev@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >The PC's numeric keypad looks like this: > 7 8 9 > 4 5 6 > 1 2 3 > 0 >On the other hand the phone looks like this: > 1 2 3 > 4 5 6 > 7 8 9 > 0 >Any idea why the difference: What the other respondents say is true. The computer keyboard is patterned on the adding machine keyboard. The reason the phone pad is different is that ATT didn't want adding machine wizards to be able to dial a phone number as quickly as they could input numbers to an adding machine. Early TouchTone circuits could not recognize the tones as quickly as they do now. Superstition. AT&T has been practicing human-interface engineering with a vengeance for longer than most of us have been alive. In this case, they decided that for the great majority of people who use phones but not adding machines, the 123 on top was more logical and easy to use. It's also more logical and easy to use for adding machines, but like QWERTY keyboards it's too hard to change over when the entire "installed base" is used to the current standard. There was a paper published by Bell Labs on this; I'm amazed nobody has posted the reference.