I wonder this all the time.Yes! It's not just me, lol.
I have difficulty dialling a telephone due to this exact issue (and because I've used a computer keyboard numpad many, many more times than a phone keypad).
I never used the keyboard numpad enough to get used to it, so I'm more used to phone, credit card terminal and ATM numpads, actually. Was very happy to discover the existence of TKLs.Interesting that the cc terminals and atms also have it laid out like the phone.
It came from claculator and adding machine layouts being predominantly low numbers on the bottom. So it made sense for data entry to be the same on computers. The telephone layout is more logical, but again we got stuck with the "traditional" layout simply because of familiarity at the time of designing the keyboard layouts. Same reason we all type QWERTY.
Interesting, never even thought about this but then again I don't do data entry. Just one of those things that happens and gets fixed as is.Thank you! This settled it for me. It would be interesting if someone revisits this again. If in fact, 123 at the top is faster, maybe remapping the keys on the num pad make sense for data entry. Pretty easy to swap the keycaps too.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119296&page=1
Why is the Ten Key numpad upside down? Same reason most keyboard layouts look like the Model M's Everyone chasing the leader. In 1914, Sustrand introduced an adding machine that became the one everyone copied.Interesting. I wonder if Bell ever contacted them. And if so, maybe they didn't want to share the secrets of speed?
http://retrocalculators.com/sundstrand.htm
And then of course this beauty gets posted in here (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=76318.0) today:Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/LQyg9wi.jpg)
Check out that numpad layout! And is it just me or does that look like phone controls?
That's a good observation. I thought that to be quite odd, but then again, the whole thing looks a bit odd, lol.And then of course this beauty gets posted in here (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=76318.0) today:Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/LQyg9wi.jpg)
Check out that numpad layout! And is it just me or does that look like phone controls?
Hmm.... look at the arrows. I think someone put the caps on in the incorrect positions. Looks like they were designed to be low numbers at the bottom.
That's a good observation. I thought that to be quite odd, but then again, the whole thing looks a bit odd, lol.And then of course this beauty gets posted in here (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=76318.0) today:Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/LQyg9wi.jpg)
Check out that numpad layout! And is it just me or does that look like phone controls?
Hmm.... look at the arrows. I think someone put the caps on in the incorrect positions. Looks like they were designed to be low numbers at the bottom.
It would and that's why I'm not sure if the arrow theory is correct.That's a good observation. I thought that to be quite odd, but then again, the whole thing looks a bit odd, lol.And then of course this beauty gets posted in here (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=76318.0) today:Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/LQyg9wi.jpg)
Check out that numpad layout! And is it just me or does that look like phone controls?
Hmm.... look at the arrows. I think someone put the caps on in the incorrect positions. Looks like they were designed to be low numbers at the bottom.
Wouldn't the 5 remain in the same position though. Even so the arrows would make more sense if they were low at the bottom.
One thing that may influence things is that computer entered numbers have a much higher frequency of 1's, 0's, and the use of decimal points. So the pad may have been flipped for computer use to minimize finger motion due to occurrence of commonly input numbers.
I remember seeing some statistics on it before showing that lower digits appeared more often in real world data sets, but all I could find with a quick google search was Benford's law about the frequency distribution of leading digits (probability that a numerical input will start with a given digit), which says that in normal use numbers will disproportionately start with smaller digits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law)
I would suspect that are far more data entry operators using numpads than programmers. And they would be entering much more than just 0 and 1.Eh? Benford's law was proposed before there were any digital computers.
I would suspect that are far more data entry operators using numpads than programmers. And they would be entering much more than just 0 and 1.Eh? Benford's law was proposed before there were any digital computers.
I remember seeing some statistics on it before showing that lower digits appeared more often in real world data sets, but all I could find with a quick google search was Benford's law about the frequency distribution of leading digits (probability that a numerical input will start with a given digit), which says that in normal use numbers will disproportionately start with smaller digits:This theory seems to make sense with me. It would also explain why this worked on calculators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law)
I would suspect that are far more data entry operators using numpads than programmers. And they would be entering much more than just 0 and 1.
Ah, I read it as binary as well.I would suspect that are far more data entry operators using numpads than programmers. And they would be entering much more than just 0 and 1.
Oh, I may have wrote that a bit weird, the 0's and 1's part, I didn't really mean binary, I only ever had to write machine code in binary once, and was happy to transition to assembly later in that class, I just meant the normal occurrence of those numbers in the natural use, so lots of 10's 100's and seemingly whole numbers and other ones that you would normally write.
Now, what I would have asked was why on older terminals, like the F122, was the tab key (when available) at the top of the numpad if the more commonly input numbers would be distributed closer to the bottom of the keypad... That would lead to a lot of top to bottom action filling out data fields if we were assuming they were laid out according to digit frequency and ergonomics.
One thing that may influence things is that computer entered numbers have a much higher frequency of 1's, 0's, and the use of decimal points. So the pad may have been flipped for computer use to minimize finger motion due to occurrence of commonly input numbers.
I remember seeing some statistics on it before showing that lower digits appeared more often in real world data sets, but all I could find with a quick google search was Benford's law about the frequency distribution of leading digits (probability that a numerical input will start with a given digit), which says that in normal use numbers will disproportionately start with smaller digits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law)
The research done by Bell labs was the best I've yet seen for this and agree that the low numbers at the top is most usable and practical. That said, however, two handed data entry on the top row has the capability to be faster and more efficient than either numpad orientation :)Hmmm...that's an interesting point about the top row of numbers. If I cover all of them with my fingers, I literally only have to move the fingers to hit 5 and 6. With each number already under a finger, that's a tremendous savings in time right there. I wonder if I can train myself to type numbers this way. If so, then I'll be on the road to a tkl when I never thought I could live without the numpad.
Isn't it because the calculator has the same layout as a numpad so accountants that would use a numpad much more than the average user could quickly transition from calculator to numpad depending on what they have to do? So it would be do the calculations on the calculator and then data entry on the numpad. Would probably be a headache if those two were inverted to be like a phone or ATM.I think that's probably the case since computers evolved from calculators, but still when the research showed the telephone pad was a better layout, why wasn't that adopted is a bit of a huh moment.
Isn't it because the calculator has the same layout as a numpad so accountants that would use a numpad much more than the average user could quickly transition from calculator to numpad depending on what they have to do? So it would be do the calculations on the calculator and then data entry on the numpad. Would probably be a headache if those two were inverted to be like a phone or ATM.I think that's probably the case since computers evolved from calculators, but still when the research showed the telephone pad was a better layout, why wasn't that adopted is a bit of a huh moment.