[lutusp]

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.

[DanBC]

But you're using an arbitrary definition of 'less' that most people do not use, and have never used.

You can't redefine words and then complain when people don't use your new definition.

"Less keystrokes = optmal laziness." is perfectly clear in context. 'Smaller keystrokes' is, in context, nonsensical.

[lutusp]

> But you're using an arbitrary definition of 'less' that most people do not use, and have never used.

Contradicted by this:

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/less-versus-fewer.aspx

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less

And this:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/less-or-fewer

And this:

http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/fewer-vs-l...

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.

Yes -- which is why I posted in the first place.