[gwn7]

> I never understood this way of thinking about touch typing as a distinct skill from typing.

Touch typing is a special technique. Typing and touch typing being distinct things isn't a "way of thinking", it's a clear fact. It's not open to interpretation.

The keyboard is an instrument. Anyone can use it without learning the proper technique, but the technique helps a great deal. That's the whole point.

It is greatly comparable to musical instruments. For instance you can learn how to play the guitar yourself, but if you know the proper technique, you'll have better mastery in a shorter time. This is why it needs to be teached, especially to knowledge workers, who type, type and type all day long.

Maybe the skill you currently have is enough for you, but you shouldn't dismiss the proper technique, especially if you haven't tried it (you sound like you didn't really).

Though if you can answer yes to all the questions below, then you probably don't need the technique:

- Can you easily do 80+ wpm whether it is prose or code?

- Do you have more than 95% accuracy at all times?

- Do you never (no exceptions) look at the keyboard?

These things all make a difference. Having less friction with the input instrument results in a higher stamina in a knowledge worker, which means more productivity per unit of time. Few realize this.

[stavros]

I could easily do 120 wpm at 98% accuracy before I switched to touch typing years ago. Now I'm at 80wpm at 95%.

[gwn7]

You are the exception, you know that right? There will always be outliers. What we should care about is what the technique can do for the majority of the people.

But since you are an interesting exception, I'm curious of your take actually. Maybe please offer us some more information:

- Why do you think you did slow down after the switch to touch typing?

- Why did you feel the need to switch to touch typing if the skill you already had was so good?

- Do you think there are any benefits of touch typing over your old technique?

- Do you regret switching to touch typing? Why?

- How many years did it take you to get to 120 wpm at 98%?

- Is there anything you miss from your old technique (beside the higher stats)?

[StavrosK]

> You are the exception, you know that right?

Sure, but I don't agree that touch typing is "the" technique and that it's impossible that someone else has come up with a better one independently. Touch typing is a good way to type well, but I don't think it's distinct from "typing", it's one way to type. Just like you can play the guitar even if you don't know the technique.

> - Why do you think you did slow down after the switch to touch typing?

I have no idea, the way to hit the keys just feels less convenient to me. For example, the x and c are harder to hit because my fingers don't like going there, I can't really explain it better.

> - Why did you feel the need to switch to touch typing if the skill you already had was so good?

Half because I got an ortho split keyboard and couldn't use my old technique with it, and half because everyone said touch typing is so much better.

> - Do you regret switching to touch typing? Why?

Yes, my old technique is much more comfortable and faster. I still type the "old" way on regular keyboards, but it's not such a big deal either way, since I'm usually limited by the speed of my brain rather than my hands, and I don't much mind the reduced accuracy either. I'm touch typing this on the split keyboard right now.

> - How many years did it take you to get to 120 wpm at 98%?

I've been typing that way for 20 years, so I can't really say. I definitely remember being pretty good around 4 years in, possibly long before that.

> - Is there anything you miss from your old technique (beside the higher stats)?

It just feels more comfortable, when I touch-type I feel a bit like I'm fighting the keyboard, or as if I'm wearing shoes half a size too small. With my old technique (e.g. on my laptop) I feel at home.

[lostcolony]

I'm the same way, and the reason is simple - I played MUDs as a kid. I can hit > 100 wpm easily if my brain can keep up. Occasionally something will throw me; a weird bit of punctuation, like the shift + number keys, but that's about it. I've tried to learn to touch type, but the drop in speed, and the promise of ending up basically where I am now means I just don't care. The way I move my hands and wrists and such probably also helps avoid carpal tunnel, though I have nothing other than my own suspicions (and the 20+ years I've been typing without issue or concern over posture/wrist rests/etc) to base that on.

[byteface]

I think speed is misinterpretted. I meant as a minimum benchmark, as in it won't be slower than your unorthodox methods once you are good at it. Not as a max. Typing words as you think them IMO beats holding your breathe and playing 3 finger whackamole to get a paragraph out while looking down at the keyboard. I have also been half way between 2 methods and glad I was able to transition over fully. As someone mentioned it also works on split keyboards.

[lostcolony]

I don't look at the keyboard, I don't hold my breath. It's perfectly natural. Playing a MUD I didn't look at my keyboard; I was watching the screen and reading lines as they went by.

[Izkata]

> I played MUDs as a kid.

For me it was the chat in StarCraft, had to get messages out fast enough not to interrupt the action.

[StavrosK]

Realms of Despair represent!

[gwn7]

Thank you for your detailed answers, I appreciate them.

> Sure, but I don't agree that touch typing is "the" technique and that it's impossible that someone else has come up with a better one independently. Touch typing is a good way to type well, but I don't think it's distinct from "typing", it's one way to type. Just like you can play the guitar even if you don't know the technique.

I think you have a point here. Touch typing may not be "the" technique. We should always be open to new and better techniques and not embrace touch typing as a dogma, of course. And okay, it's only one way to type, and there are surely other ways to type.

I'm not saying that everybody has to learn touch typing because it was sent by the gods. I'm not even the biggest fan myself. I agree that it has its problems and I know for a fact that there are a lot of people out there with their own techniques who easily outperform touch typists.

So I'm not defending touch typing "at all costs".

I was praising it because I have an educator's perspective here and have the general public in mind, especially when I offer general advice in a forum like this. At the start of this thread I was replying to a person who seemingly didn't know much about touch typing.

While there are reports of other techniques that easily outperform touch typing in terms of wpn, accuracy and comfort; there are other properties of a technique that may or may not be important depending on one's perspective.

Let's call them "teachability" and "time of mastery". Touch typing is a very valuable tool not just because it allows one to perform sufficiently in terms of wpm & accuracy, but also because it is very easy to teach it. One doesn't even need a teacher as it's completely public and straightforward knowledge. There are very clear instructions on how to master it, and the mastery happens in 3-6 months. All very predictable and guaranteed. I don't know of any other technique that is comparable in this regard.

And there are so many people out there who don't know about touch typing or realize how much better it can make their lives. Touch typing is their quickest path to better productivity.

I cannot tell those people that: "There is this established typing technique that you can master in 3 months, but maybe don't learn it, because there are reports that there are people who developed their own better techniques in a couple of years, and there is a possibility that you can end up like them".

Obviously, the expert's and the educator's perspectives are different here, so I don't really think we're in a big disagreement.

[StavrosK]

My "disagreement" (I wasn't really disagreeing) is on something you addressed in the original comment: If you're already fast and accurate enough, you don't need to switch to touch typing. I was more offering a counterpoint that some people have independently settled on their own technique that works for them, and that your list of pointers where someone might not need to learn to touch type is indeed correct.

[gwn7]

Thank you for the clarification.

> If you're already fast and accurate enough, you don't need to switch to touch typing.

I agree.

[sombremesa]

This type of obsession with something that completely ignores facts is not healthy. The arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards efficiency.

There’s a reason we’re not all learning touch typing and using Dvorak keyboards.

[gwn7]

It's funny. Do you realize that your comment has no content? You speak like a politician. You're just attacking without really saying anything. Maybe answer:

- What makes you call this an "obsession"? There's just a remark and an inquiry. Please point out the obsession part, if you can.

- Ignores which facts? You are responsible with providing at least some of them if you want to be a part of the discussion, do you realize that?

- And what is that reason? The will of the universe?

I certainly wasn't saying everybody should learn touch typing and use Dvorak keyboards. Thank you for the straw man as a bonus.

Read my latest relevant answer that should show that I'm not obsessed with touch typing but have a clear reasoning behind my praisal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27171906

And if you're going to reply, maybe be a bit more respectful and provide a proper argument instead of empty attacks. I won't engage further otherwise.

[sombremesa]

My comment does have content, but it wasn’t for you.

[gwn7]

Yes, your "content" includes an ad hominem and a straw man. And still you are choosing not to answer my questions to clarify your points, but trying to taunt me. Obviously because you don't have an answer. You are not very smart and not worth my time. Bye bye

[yesenadam]

I'm not sure why one system of typing gets to call itself "the proper technique". Someone made up a system and to promote it called it "the proper technique", I guess.

Also, I don't think that on guitar there is any such thing as "the proper technique". (Musician here.) Different people play the instrument very differently—even within genres, let alone between them. But perhaps guitar was a bad example.

[gwn7]

Please see my latest relevant comment about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27171906

The reason I call touch typing the proper technique is that it does very good in terms of both wpm, accuracy, comfort, teachability and time of mastery. That's why it is more popular than all other nameless techniques. So until there is a technique that does better in all those terms on average, I think it's not the biggest crime to call it "the proper technique". If you don't like it, call it mainstream, popular, whatever.[1] It's the technique every ambitious typist needs to start with at this age (Unless they are already very good). Because as far as I know there is no better technique that is teachable at this time.

As to the guitar comment; there are so many guitar methods. Everybody picks one or another. People who try to learn the thing without help from any techniques / methods won't have high chances of being successful in a reasonable amount of time. (I'm a musician too.) If we agree on the benefit of a technique, when we apply this to typing we naturally come to touch typing. Because as far as I know it is the only documented and teachable typing technique. I'll be happy to be proven wrong. I've been looking for an alternative technique, but couldn't find any until now.

Everybody likes to bash touch typing saying that they have their own special technique they developed over the years that outperform touch typing, but I don't see how this is relevant. We cannot expect everybody to develop their own perfect typing technique over the years when there is already a tried & tested technique available.

In short, what I'm saying is, name a "more proper" technique, and I will shut up. Personal and obscure "techniques" that are not teachable don't count.

[1] And your philosophical argument doesn't really make sense. Yes, touch typing is a human construct. If we can't call it "proper" just because it was invented by humans, then we are in trouble. I didn't call it "proper" because I was implying that it was a gift from the gods. I called it that because there are a lot of indicators that it is the most proper thing that we have available at the moment.

[Izkata]

You're referring to things like home-row touch-typing. My experience matches GP, which is touch-typing, but not home-row.

[gwn7]

The OP was referring to "home-row touch-typing" as simply "touch typing", as nearly everybody does, so I didn't feel the need to clarify. I don't see how pedanticism helps here.

[Izkata]

The first response was not, then your response to that jumped back to home row without distinguishing non-home-row touch-typing from just typing. It's not just being pedantic when the meaning actually changes.

The first response, as well as myself, went from hunt-and-peck typing to non-home-row touch-typing. The first response was confused about why people have to put effort into "touch-typing" when it's something that comes naturally over time, like it did for us.

It's not useful to conflate the two. "Touch-typing" means "not hunt-and-peck", not "home-row touch-typing".