Telephones and Calculators

2010-11-14

I’m often confused by the difference between the configuration of the numbers on calculators and telephones. It’s fairly similar, with the three by three grid for numbers 1 through 9, and then the zero placed underneath. The difference is that on calculators, the 1 is at the bottom left, and the numbers go up in value from left to right and up from there. This is the same for keypads on computers. On phones, however, the 1 is on the top left, and the numbers go up in value from left to right and down from there.

Why are they different?

According to this handy telephone timeline, the first touch-tone telephone was introduced in 1963. I can only assume that the number configuration for telephones has not changed since then. According to Wikipedia, as well as a few other places I looked, the first pocket calculators, came out in the 1970s. It seems to me that the people developing the calculators could have at least talked to the people developing the touch-tone phones and said, “Hey, the numbers on our keypads are in a similar configuration, but they’re too different. Why don’t we synchronize them?”

Why do I care?

Because it just gets frustrating when I make a lot of phone calls and then need to use a calculator. I’ve just gotten used to the configuration of the numbers on the phone, and the calculator looks kind of similar, so I just start pressing where I remember the numbers being before. That doesn’t work, and I mess up a lot. It’s frustrating.

Look, I know it would be a problem to change the phone keypad configuration, because of the nicely placed pound and star buttons on either side of the 0. Could we switch up the calculator/computer keypad, though? It couldn’t happen without some people noticing, but I think it would work. We have to get some more people on this. More people have to care about this than just me, right?

Right?

I sure hope so.

UPDATE: I noticed that television remote controls also follow the telephone configuration method. Also, 10-key keypads on computer keyboards follow the calculator method. The plot thickens…

Everything Comes Full Circle

2010-01-29

To begin, a link to Flickr:

Alexa Meade’s Photostream

These are the photographs (yes, photographs) of Alexa Meade. Be sure to look at all of them. If you look at a couple of isolated ones, you may not believe that they’re photographs. They are photographs set up to look like they are paintings. The surroundings and the models are all painted in order to create the illusion.

All I could think as I looked at them was that everything had come full circle.

Every artist is aware of the quest of some to create artwork that is as photorealistic as possible. Many of us find this tedious and pointless, and find that photorealism lacks a certain something, a certain life that paintings that are less photorealistic have. Those with the patience and the drive, however, strive to create paintings that people may mistake for photographs. Some have succeeded.

Alexa Meade has gone the opposite route. She is creating photographs that people will mistake for paintings. Please go take a look. You won’t be disappointed.