I was told that they telephone keypad was inverted into order to slow down fast “dialers” (i.e. accountants and bookkeepers). Apparently there was some fear that the switches could not keep up.
All I could find was this: Western Electric Products - Telephones - Technical Table of Contents - dials-touchtone
Welcome to boards. The staff report in question is unsurprisingly Why do telephone keypads count from the top down, while calculators count from the bottom up?, just keep every one on the same conference call.
That link points to http://www.bellsystemmemorial.com/pdf/touchtone_hf.pdf, the actual report at the time. The adding-machine arrangement lost in the first heat.
Welcome to the SDMB, wbenzoni.
Since this is a comment on a Straight Dope Staff Report written by SDSTAFF Dex (rather than a Straight Dope column written by Cecil), I’ll move this thread to the appropriate forum.
bibliophage
moderator CCC
When I did that report, lo these many years ago, I found nothing that referred to “slowing down” the speed of dialing (well, of pushing.) In the report, I said that one of the reasons for the design of the telephone keypad was
So, thanks for finding the exact study, wbenzoni, interesting. And welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards!
A side note is that the AT&T study seem to have drawn conclusions based on single studies of 20 people. Seems a pretty small sample size to me; they cite correlations later in the study, in terms of pressure, key size, letter size, etc. But I only see words like “significant” and “insignifcant” tossed about in the study on key patters, with no quantification. I always get suspicious when studies don’t tell us the margin of error (or standard deviation)… and the difference in results is tenths of a second.
I’ll be darned if I can find a cite,
But I once heard that it was because accountants and such become very proficient at punching numbers extreamly quickly, and could dial faster than the touch-tones could be detected/ and or decoded by ancient cross-bar switches. The layout was thus reversed forcing them to slow down.
But no one can come up with anything more than, “I heard that,” or even “Somebody told me that he heard that.” Whereas we actually have the original AT&T research document on-line.
So there is something inherent about one layout over the other that makes it possible to type faster with one? Sounds like a variation on the QWERTY/Dvorak keyboard myth.
It should be noted that the anti-Dvorak article cited is suffused with a right-wing bias, thus:[ul]
[li]Capitalism is the best of all possible worlds.[/li][li]QWERTY is the product of Capitalism.[/li][li]Therefore, QWERTY cannot be inferior to any other layout, and anyone who thinks another layout is better that QWERTY must be a dirty commie.[/li][/ul]
Note that I have no opinion one way or the other about the Dvorak/QWERTY question, because I lack the data. But Liebowitz and Margolis make their prejudice abundantly clear.
Man, it must suck for a Mod to have to clean up after an Admin…
How is that relevant? The article also points up severe defecits in how Dvorak ran the experiments that “proved” his layout’s superiority, and makes a strong case that when you’ve learned one layout the cost of switching outweighs whatever benefits might be had from using the other.
It should also be noted that being pro-Capitalism is not really indicative of being right-wing.
The authors blatantly start from the assumption that the Dvorak keyboard is an evil heresy. I don’t trust religious fanatics whether they say they worship Allah, Jesus, or Adam Smith.
If you think that’s an objective study, I’ve got some creationist biology textbooks to sell you.
The report says that 15 - 20 people were used per session, which implies to me that they used different people for each configuration. That makes sense to me. When I was at Bell Labs, long after this study, from time to time requests would to out for people to test new technology. I’m sure people at Murray Hill got asked even more often.
I suspect that your third reason for the ordering, keeping the letters in alphabetical order while keeping the letter/number association, is the answer. Notice that all the configurations that don’t attempt to duplicate a dial have 1s at top. You’d think they’d try the odd two column configurations with 1 at the bottom at least once.
There are a couple of reasons that I don’t believe the speed of dialing was an issue. First, I agree with Musicat that it sounds too much like the typewriter case. Second, I am almost certain that the pulses were registered at the switch. There are enough times that people don’t finish dialing that making the connection at dialing speed would be very inefficient. Even back then, the registers would collect the numbers far faster than anyone can dial. Third, revenue was gotten from call length, and dialing time was not included. Anything cutting down the time the switch was in use and not making money was a good thing.
BTW, you’re right on about 0 being ten pulses. At least one phone system I was on allowed you to dial by clicking the switch hook the proper number of times for each number! Interesting fact number two - the BSTJ issue giving the signaling frequencies for touch tone phones (and I think some of the codes when control was done over the voice lines) was the most checked out volume in the MIT engineering library as of 1970.
This is a link I found with the filename of the dead link(and is also an image of a phone rotary dial): http://porticus.org/bell/images/dial_6aa.jpg Now I wonder if I provided this information in the right place or whether I should have sent it in to the contact link.
Since the thread was revived and the question not answered…
The reason the bottom up layout would be faster for accountants and typists is basically practice. They spend hours each day for years typing numbers in the keypad layout with numbers at bottom. They get proficient with that layout. So any layout that changes the pattern so it doesn’t map the same would be slower for them, because they have to stop and think.
That doesn’t make the explanation true, but explains why it could be true.
That doesn’t match the supposed reason for the QWERTY layout, which was to force alternate hands for adjacent letters more readily than any other layout. The alternate hands would cause the mechanism to jam less because of the way the type bars are laid out – press two keys with adjacent bars and you will get a jam. With bars on opposite sides of the bin, they just might miss each other instead of jamming.
For a 10-key layout, if you are used to a zero on the bottom, you would type just as fast as someone used to a zero on the top. The buttons don’t care, and there’s no physical jamming to worry about. The “stop and think” idea wouldn’t apply once you got used to it, and doesn’t apply if you haven’t ever used one before, anyway.
Also, since the touch-tone buttons generate a dual tone, not a string of make/breaks like a dial, there is no difference in the speed or length of code of any digit over any other, or in any order.
If anyone remembers the old original touch-tone phones, I can’t believe that speed-dialing would be a problem with any configuration. The buttons on the old phones had strong springs and had to be mashed in pretty far to register the tone. I could do the three-finger touch-dialing technique, but it was difficult and not very fast.
I have a 1960 vintage TT phone right here. The pushbuttons are stiffer than a 2012 cellphone, but not too stiff to touch dial. I learned to do that in 1960 and it worked fine. Compared to a rotary, it was much faster, which is why I got it. A 1960’s geek, I was.
(The buttons’ tone-generating facility has deteriorated over time, and I can’t reliably dial out anymore, so I just use it for incoming calls, as the audio quality is far superior to most modern phones and the handset more pleasing to hold.)
Just a mild note: until the revival yesterday, this thread is from 2006. We’re not much concerned about resurrected threads, I just want to alert folks so that you don’t necessarily expect responses from people who posted six years ago.
