They insist they’re just as fast as they would be touch-typing (they’re not)
I would estimate (based on my geeky friends I’ve seen at a keyboard) less than 20% of you can touch-type properly
This seems like dogmatic adherence to tradition.
Is there actually evidence that the traditional method of touch typing, where each finger is assigned a keyboard column and returns to the “Home Row” after striking a key, is at all faster, more efficient, or ergonomically sound than just typing intuitively?
I ask because I type intuitively with ten fingers. I know where all the keys are, and I don’t see the need to return each finger to the home row after every single keystroke, which seems inefficient. If I type a common sequence like “er” or “th,” I do it with a single flick of the hand, not four separate ones.
Also, I cover a much larger portion of the keyboard with my right hand than my left, because it’s stronger and more natural for me than assigning each finger the exact same amount of keyboard real estate.
If I type a common sequence like “er” or “th,” I do it with a single flick of the hand, not four separate ones.
Skilled touch typists certainly don’t make four separate motions to type “er” or “th”. Keyboards are specifically designed to accept multiple keys being pressed at the same time, because a skilled typist naturally presses the next key before they have finished the motion for the previous one. Nearly all keyboards will accept two simultaneous keypresses, with higher-quality ones accepting 3, 4, or arbitrary numbers of simultaneous keystrokes.
To be specific, typing “er” involves lifting my hand upwards, hitting “e” and “r” with my middle and pointer fingers in quick succession, and then dropping my hand back down. Typing “th” involves lifting my left hand at the same time as I shift my right hand slightly leftwards, and striking the “t” slightly before striking the “h” (though I often transpose the two actions and end up typing “hte” or “htat”).
If I type a common sequence like “er” or “th,” I do it with a single flick of the hand, not four separate ones.
You do “th” with one hand? I suggest that is less efficient than coordinating two shorter moves by the respective nearest fingers. “rt”, of course, is a hand flick. Perhaps my vim navigation has biased me. “h” totally belongs to my right trigger finger and moving my left middle finger all the way over to the ‘t’ so that a left hand flick can pull of a ‘th’ rapidly sounds like far too far out of the way.
Is there actually evidence that the traditional method of touch typing, where each finger is assigned a keyboard column and returns to the “Home Row” after striking a key, is at all faster, more efficient, or ergonomically sound than just typing intuitively?
I don’t know of any studies (although they probably exist), but (a) touch typists I know are much faster than touch typists I don’t know, and (b) the world’s fastest typists are, as far as I know, all touch typists. Sean Wrona, currently the world’s fastest typist, uses touch typing. So did Barbara Blackburn, the previous world’s fastest typist.
I definitely agree, but that’s party because my right hand rests at an odd angle. I’ll sometimes lose the home-row on it, but it gives me much faster access to Home/End keys, as well as the numpad and the mouse, and usually those benefits far outweigh the advantages of a “traditional” typing pose.
The problem with tradition is that it’s generally only applicable to a specific set of circumstances :)
This seems like dogmatic adherence to tradition. Is there actually evidence that the traditional method of touch typing, where each finger is assigned a keyboard column and returns to the “Home Row” after striking a key, is at all faster, more efficient, or ergonomically sound than just typing intuitively?
I ask because I type intuitively with ten fingers. I know where all the keys are, and I don’t see the need to return each finger to the home row after every single keystroke, which seems inefficient. If I type a common sequence like “er” or “th,” I do it with a single flick of the hand, not four separate ones.
Also, I cover a much larger portion of the keyboard with my right hand than my left, because it’s stronger and more natural for me than assigning each finger the exact same amount of keyboard real estate.
To be specific, typing “er” involves lifting my hand upwards, hitting “e” and “r” with my middle and pointer fingers in quick succession, and then dropping my hand back down. Typing “th” involves lifting my left hand at the same time as I shift my right hand slightly leftwards, and striking the “t” slightly before striking the “h” (though I often transpose the two actions and end up typing “hte” or “htat”).
You do “th” with one hand? I suggest that is less efficient than coordinating two shorter moves by the respective nearest fingers. “rt”, of course, is a hand flick. Perhaps my vim navigation has biased me. “h” totally belongs to my right trigger finger and moving my left middle finger all the way over to the ‘t’ so that a left hand flick can pull of a ‘th’ rapidly sounds like far too far out of the way.
Then you’re fine. Two-fingered typing is the curse that we must quash. (But I don’t speak for David.)
I don’t know of any studies (although they probably exist), but (a) touch typists I know are much faster than touch typists I don’t know, and (b) the world’s fastest typists are, as far as I know, all touch typists. Sean Wrona, currently the world’s fastest typist, uses touch typing. So did Barbara Blackburn, the previous world’s fastest typist.
I definitely agree, but that’s party because my right hand rests at an odd angle. I’ll sometimes lose the home-row on it, but it gives me much faster access to Home/End keys, as well as the numpad and the mouse, and usually those benefits far outweigh the advantages of a “traditional” typing pose.
The problem with tradition is that it’s generally only applicable to a specific set of circumstances :)