4 ms·

I looked at the PDF paper and the results and I don't agree with the conclusions being drawn. The main issue I see from cursory skim is that the 30 participants

I looked at the PDF paper and the results and I don't agree with the conclusions being drawn. The main issue I see from cursory skim is that the 30 participants had a range of typing speeds from 34-79 WPM. I don't consider these individuals typing specialists or professionals based on the low WPM. Now if you consider professionals where they have a requirement of something like 90+ WPM, then I think you are going to see very few people who are not touch typists because it'd be very difficult or maybe even impossible to reach those WPM without touch typing. I think a better conclusion to draw from the study is that touch typing isn't as useful for the lower end of the WPM spectrum. For example, if you are typing at 50 WPM, touch typing vs non-touch typing isn't going to make too much of a difference. The fastest typists in the world though are touch typists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9EXEpjSDEw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9EXEpjSDEw As for > 99% of programming is thinking and structuring though, so touch-typing isn't all that useful. I don't think typing speed is the biggest factor in productivity in programming, but I think you are downplaying it too much. Effective use of keyboard shortcuts, using vim, and having a high WPM typing speed has noticeably increased my productivity.

brucephillips 9y ago
Not to mention that when assessing the productivity of information workers, you must also consider the vastly faster feedback loop of seeing what you're typing on the screen in real time, rather than typing in bursts then looking back up in the stream.
fao_ 9y ago
> then I think you are going to see very few people who are not touch typists because it'd be very difficult or maybe even impossible to reach those WPM without touch typing. Anecdata, but: I got ~160 WPM without learning touch typing. I was a regular computer user from the age of 12.
- ashark 9y ago
  > I got ~160 WPM without learning touch typing. ...what? What kind of error-rate? How long could you sustain that? How'd you manage that speed having to glance between source and keyboard? I'm pretty sure I was the fastest in my high school typing class (because I already knew how to type very well by then) and at my best I could stay a little over 100wpm for a minute or two without any errors, but it was hard. I could maybe get up around 120-130 transcribing speech and letting minor errors slip though. I doubt I get much over 90wpm at my best these days but it's still fast enough to draw the occasional "whoa!" from people watching me. 160 seems... crazy if you're not touch typing, and way above normal even if you are. [EDIT] sorry about the tone, I'm not saying you're lying, that's just... wow. Crazy fast. Must have really surprised some people, haha.
  - fao_ 9y ago
    > ...what? What kind of error-rate? How long could you sustain that? How'd you manage that speed having to glance between source and keyboard? I'm not sure what kind of error rate. Currently without complete formal training (I did the first stage of Mavis Beacon maybe twice about 6 years ago), I'm at probably 90WPM and I can write without glancing between source and keyboard (Actually, something I like doing is typing while looking directly at someone else. It creeps them out :^) ). It was weird because the incomplete formal training has actually increased my error rate, I'm using more fingers than I originally did (originally I used maybe 2 - 3 at most) but different fingers like to "step-in" now, which makes it more difficult. It doesn't help that I've switched between QWERTY and workman's layout several times (I can never seem to get the vim bindings nice :c).

brucephillips 9y ago

Not to mention that when assessing the productivity of information workers, you must also consider the vastly faster feedback loop of seeing what you're typing on the screen in real time, rather than typing in bursts then looking back up in the stream.

fao_ 9y ago

> then I think you are going to see very few people who are not touch typists because it'd be very difficult or maybe even impossible to reach those WPM without touch typing. Anecdata, but: I got ~160 WPM without learning touch typing. I was a regular computer user from the age of 12.

ashark 9y ago
> I got ~160 WPM without learning touch typing. ...what? What kind of error-rate? How long could you sustain that? How'd you manage that speed having to glance between source and keyboard? I'm pretty sure I was the fastest in my high school typing class (because I already knew how to type very well by then) and at my best I could stay a little over 100wpm for a minute or two without any errors, but it was hard. I could maybe get up around 120-130 transcribing speech and letting minor errors slip though. I doubt I get much over 90wpm at my best these days but it's still fast enough to draw the occasional "whoa!" from people watching me. 160 seems... crazy if you're not touch typing, and way above normal even if you are. [EDIT] sorry about the tone, I'm not saying you're lying, that's just... wow. Crazy fast. Must have really surprised some people, haha.
- fao_ 9y ago
  > ...what? What kind of error-rate? How long could you sustain that? How'd you manage that speed having to glance between source and keyboard? I'm not sure what kind of error rate. Currently without complete formal training (I did the first stage of Mavis Beacon maybe twice about 6 years ago), I'm at probably 90WPM and I can write without glancing between source and keyboard (Actually, something I like doing is typing while looking directly at someone else. It creeps them out :^) ). It was weird because the incomplete formal training has actually increased my error rate, I'm using more fingers than I originally did (originally I used maybe 2 - 3 at most) but different fingers like to "step-in" now, which makes it more difficult. It doesn't help that I've switched between QWERTY and workman's layout several times (I can never seem to get the vim bindings nice :c).