Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: julian@bongo.uucp (Julian Macassey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Which Came First?
Message-ID: <12881@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 1 Oct 90 15:00:50 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.
Lines: 72
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 702, Message 5 of 12


In article <12785@accuvax.nwu.edu>, johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John
Parsons) writes:

> When Touch*Tone first came out, I remember my father griping that the
> number pad was arranged differently from that of ten-key adding
> machines, i.e.,

> Does anyone remember why Bell chose to be different?  (I assume ten-key
> adders came first).

	Every time I lecture on the subject of phones and there is a
bean counter in the audience I get asked this question. Usually from
the perspective that the calculator model ("Ten Key") is perfect and
the AT&T model is an aberration. My response, which is often not well
received by the bean counters, is below. I am not sure how true it is,
some or all of it may be folklore. I have gleaned it over the years. I
believe there is a Bell paper on this, but have never located it.

	Back in the old days when AT&T was designing Touch Tone, they
had to lay out the dial. This was late fifties, early sixties. I am
not sure when the 10 key adding machine replaced the comptometer, but
it was in this era. This was an era before the $5.00 calculator. This
was when electric adding machines were expensive, large, noisy, beasts
and only used by bean counters.

	So AT&T needed a number pad. They really had no model, so they
ran experiments to determine which was the easiest to use with the
least errors. The clear winner was the 2X5 (Two columns, five rows) as
below:

                            12
                            34
                            56
                            78
                            90

	The problem with the 2X5 is that it doesn't fit too well on
the front panel of a standard desk phone. The next winner was the 3X4
which is what most of the world uses today:

                           123
                           456
                           789
                            0

	Now obviously if the same research was being done today, the
ubiquitousness of the electronic calculator would have an influence.
This brings me to the next comment.	 

> How are the number pads

Arranged on European or Asian phones?

	In Denmark, the Touch Tone pads are "Upside down". This is
mainly because the Danes moved into Touch Tone in the late seventies
and by that time everyone had a calculator and expected that number
pads had 789 in the top row. But Denmark is the only exception I know
of. In many countries, Touch Tone is still being introduced.

> Do the keyboards
> of today's operator consoles have the same number pads as us mortals
> (7 8 9 on the top), or do they have 1 2 3 on the top row, as on
> phones?  

	Operator consoles follow normal telco practice. By the way,
TIE once had a combined calculator/phone. I never saw one, so I wonder
what the number pad was like.


Julian Macassey, n6are  julian@bongo.info.com  ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495