[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

[sombremesa]

Your therapist deserves a raise.