
A brief history of the numeric keypad - rayascott
https://uxdesign.cc/a-brief-history-of-the-numeric-keypad-59112cbf4c49
======
tzs
The 123 on the bottom makes some sense for calculators because calculator
keypads, unlike telephone keypads, are often used to enter data, physical
constants, and mathematical constants.

Those quite often follow Benford's Law [1]. That means if you are using
scientific notation, where numbers consist of one digit to the left of the
decimal point, the decimal point, and then a fractional part, then an exponent
for the power of 10 the number is to be multiplied by, then you are much more
likely to be entering a small digit before the decimal point than a large
digit.

123, therefore, arguably belongs near the decimal point on the keypad on
calculators.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law)

~~~
da_chicken
I don't even think it's that technical, though I agree Benford's law does
help.

The numeric keypad is largely based off of ribbon tape desk calculators [0],
which is why the + is double size, the enter (=) is double size, and the 0 is
double size. The + and Enter are designed to be used by the right hand pinky,
while the 0 is designed for use with the thumb. The numeric keypad is designed
for _five finger entry_. Leaving it in that configuration means that people in
an office who are used to using a ribbon calculator can more easily adapt to
the PC keyboard. That's what office workers expect to find on a machine that
sometimes is just a calculator.

If you go into a business or accounting office today, you'll _still_ see
people using these stupid calculators (stupid because they waste paper and
ink). And if you've ever seen someone use one that's good with them, they can
be extremely fast. Faster than you'd ever need to be entering a phone number
(unless you need to enter the IT Crowd's emergency number).

When you use a telephone, however, you only use one finger. You're only
entering 7 to 11 digits, typically.

[0]:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=ribbon+tape+calculators&tbm=...](https://www.google.com/search?q=ribbon+tape+calculators&tbm=isch)

------
Stratoscope
The article mentions the 1960 Bell System user study of different keypad
layouts. I can't speak to the other layouts, but I think in hindsight it's
clear why the "touch tone" layout (with 123 at the top) won over the the
"calculator" layout (with 789 at the top).

Everyone or nearly everyone in the user study was surely a _telephone user_.
At the time, that meant being accustomed to the rotary dial layout, where the
order of the digits is 1234567890. 0 is the last digit, after 9.

Both the calculator and touch tone layouts had 0 at the bottom. So the
calculator layout has 0 next to 123. The touch tone layout has 0 next to 789
(and following the 9), just like a rotary dial.

This must have accounted for some of the preference between these two layouts.

------
Theodores
The numeric keypad on computers has stayed remarkably consistent given how
adept manufacturers are at moving the other keys around the keyboard. It is
not a given that Page Up/Down, cursor keys, the delete key and others will be
where you expect them to be by convention, these keys can be moved around for
'designer reasons' even on keyboards from the same manufacturer (yes, you,
Logitech).

I have yet to see the numeric keypad on the left for left handed users that
type in lots of numbers, e.g accountants, data entry clerks etc. We also never
had desktop computers integrated into landline phones with a 'phone lock'
button to switch over to 'dial someone' mode. At all times the numeric keypad
has opted to follow convention as defined by the original IBM PC circa 1981.

~~~
thrower123
It's a considerable inconvenience for me now to encounter a phone-style input.
I so rarely dial numbers that aren't already in my contacts that it is unusual
to encounter, and many phone number inputs just use numeric layouts. I have to
stop and think or my 1s are all 7s.

------
userbinator
This reminds me of the two opposing conventions for drawing memory maps --- do
you put "lower" (numerically lesser) addresses at the bottom and increase to
"higher" addresses at the top, or start with 0 at the top and "increase"
downwards? Just like with the Endianness Wars, it seems that multiple
conventions often prevail when there isn't a clear and obvious advantage of
one.

~~~
twic
Lower on the left, higher on the right! And if you don't have space for that,
lay the addresses out on a Ulam spiral ...

------
chronomex
One of the articles cited is available for free:
<[https://archive.org/details/bstj39-4-995>](https://archive.org/details/bstj39-4-995>).
I find it interesting to note that the engineers also made variable force
profile pushbuttons to test different springinesses as well.

------
lucas_membrane
> In 1902, the Dalton went on to become one of the most popular 10-key adding
> machines of the time, rendering multi-column calculators obsolete.

Multi-column calculators survived much longer, being king of the hill for
high-accuracy multiplication and division. I had a job using one until the end
of 1969.

------
bmurray7jhu
On rotary phones, zero was usually at the bottom of the rotar, just after the
after nine. When touch tone phones came out, I suspect many people preferred
the zero at the bottom of the keypad since it was near the nine and better
aligned with their existing muscle memory

