The Best Format for Phone Numbers (206) 555-1212
In the past several years many designers have take to present phone numbers in a format with dots. For example: 206.555.1212. But I have no idea why they do this. It is difficult to recognize as a phone number. This dotted format - at quick glance - looks more like an IP address than a telephone number. So I ask, which group of numbers below is more easily recognized as a phone number to you?
(206) 850-9798
206-850-9798
206.850.9798
I’d argue day and night that (206) 555-1212 is the easiest to recognize format.
Aside from human recognition, some applications (like Microsoft Outlook 2003) won’t recognize 206.555.1212 as a phone number. This led me to check in with the Microformats folks to see if they had a specification or a standard format for phone numbers. Unfortunately, their list of Microformats doesn’t turn up anything for phone numbers. vCards are as close as they get.
Looking past function for a moment consider the aesthetics of the three options above. The (206) 555-1212 format is much more beautiful and elegant. It has subtle curves in the parenthesis, more white space overall and a clear call to locality (that is, separating the area code from the local number).
Do you feel as strongly about using 206.850.9798 as I do about using (206) 555-1212? Tell me why in the comments below. If we end up getting any comments on this (especially from non-American viewers who have different phone number formats) then we’ll have to expand the discussion to include international telephone number formats.
I do feel pretty passionate about the use of dots in my phone formatting (as well as in time and date)*. Probably as much as I do using the European method of presenting dates (07.08.27 not 08.27.07) and having the toilet paper roll being put on properly.
To me the use of dots adheres to the minimalist approach of getting the information to someone without visual clutter. The dot creates a negative spacing between the clustered numbers and the numbers themselves help in the pairing and easy memorization of a phone number as they clearly present themselves without any other graphic distractions.
With the parentheses method, a person with poor writing skills (aka most doctors), can draw a () that can easily be mistaken for a 1, 2, 4, 7, maybe 9, C, I, L…you get the point. The dot on the otherhand, is an element that is down below, out of the way and can not be mistaken for a number or anything else.
I agree that the parentheses have an somewhat beautiful look, but it is distracting from what I need to know and retain. I find the numbers themslves much sexier than having to add an elegant element to compete/distract. And isn’t the - a harsh looking element.
In todays world of homogization and globalization, is knowing someones locality such great importance? Not really when conducting business, but when wanting to get together with friends who move to Arizona, yes!!
*this posting would not have been made possible without the use of parentheses.
Comment by how — August 27, 2007 @ 11:09 am
How,
Great comments. I’m glad to get the conversation started here. I’d love to hear from others, particularly around the pure aesthetic appreciation of the different formats. My heart and mind still lies with (206) 850-9798 : )
- Kevin
Comment by Kevin Goldman — August 27, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
I need to know the correct format for writing this?
(325) 677-1444, ext 8074
Is there supposed to be a comma in this or not?
Gayla
Comment by Gayla Herrington — September 10, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Gayla,
There is no formal microformat specification for telephone numbers at this date. For extensions, I feel that this format below is the most readable and economical:
(206) 850-9798 ext 201
Comment by Kevin Goldman — September 10, 2007 @ 2:21 pm