3 ms·
Let me introduce you shorthand, especially alphabetic shorthand. (The latter is much easier to learn) You can get relatively easily into the 100WPM range - abo
by groby_b 6y ago
Let me introduce you shorthand, especially alphabetic shorthand. (The latter is much easier to learn)
You can get relatively easily into the 100WPM range - above most good typists. And if you're willing to invest in symbolic instead of alphabetic shorthand, you can get to ~200WPM, well outside of what a typical touch typist can do.
- fastball 6y agoI'd be interested to see how well shorthand helps with the concerns raised in the OP (retention, etc) though. I personally type at 120 WPM and so I think would struggle to do much better with handwriting in a way that would be helpful for long-term use of my notes, as shorthand does not seem very useful in this regard.
- groby_b 6y agoI'm curious - why do you think shorthand isn't useful for long-term use? It stays perfectly readable. It's not "I made up this abbreviation, and now I don't know what it means". :)
- fastball 6y agoI guess for me in particular it's because a lot of my notes I like to share with others or re-arrange in a way that I don't think would be conducive to short-hand.
- Dylan16807 6y ago> And if you're willing to invest in symbolic instead of alphabetic shorthand, you can get to ~200WPM, well outside of what a typical touch typist can do. The fair comparison to that is probably stenotyping at 300WPM.
- groby_b 6y agoWell, yes and no. OP was comparing touch typing and hand writing. Which I think are the two major modes of note taking available - few of us lug around extra hardware to do stenotyping. But yes, it's faster. (So is just recording everything on video, if we just care about speed :)
- Dylan16807 6y agoIf you can carry around a laptop, you can carry around an extra mini keyboard or learn how to do chording on a normal keyboard.