> The comparative less is used with both count and uncount nouns in most informal discourse environments and in most dialects of English, and in these environments, the word fewer is hardly used at all.
> Less has always been used in English with counting nouns. Indeed, the application of the distinction between less and fewer as a rule is a phenomenon originating in the 18th century.
It argues that some keystrokes are smaller than others, because that's what "less" means -- it describes the size (not the number) of the things under discussion.
Goerge W. Bush once said there would be less soldiers in Iraq in a subsequent year. I immediately pictured the same number of soldiers, but each of them smaller.
Again, it's not about correctness, it's about clear communications.
A quote from the last link: "The basic rule for precise use of 'less' and 'fewer' is simple (though we slip often). Use 'fewer' with countable, individual things, and 'less' with uncountable amounts, volumes, etc. So: 'I should drink less coffee,' but 'I should eat fewer doughnuts.'"
> 'Smaller keystrokes' is, in context, nonsensical.
> The comparative less is used with both count and uncount nouns in most informal discourse environments and in most dialects of English, and in these environments, the word fewer is hardly used at all.
> Less has always been used in English with counting nouns. Indeed, the application of the distinction between less and fewer as a rule is a phenomenon originating in the 18th century.
etc etc.