3 ms·
His no. 10 is wrong. That's a perfectly valid, and, in fact, the expected way to print phonenumbers in systems that has a long-distance selector. It's his scann
by mseebach 17y ago
His no. 10 is wrong. That's a perfectly valid, and, in fact, the expected way to print phonenumbers in systems that has a long-distance selector. It's his scanner-software that isn't up for the job.
The rest of his points are mostly valid, and examples of sacrificing usefulness over artfulness.
- roel_v 17y agoMay be perfectly valid, but many people don't know how to handle the 0 if they rarely make international phone calls. I agree with the article's authors on this point, albeit not for OCR reasons - if you've got an international phone nr on your card, leave out the 0, so that people only have to type what's actually on the card and don't have to think about archaic implementation details of phone systems.