On Fri, October 19, 2007 6:30 am, Todd Walton wrote: > On 10/18/07, Gabriel Sechan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Why would you want to? It really isn't that much faster. > > Pshaw! Whatever else you say about hunt-and-peck vs. touch typing, I > really think you can't say hunt-and-pecking has the speed potential of > touch typing. > > -todd, 60wpm > I think he was saying that two/three-fingered typing can be almost as fast as touch typing, not hunt-and-peck. For instance, I don't touch type in the classical fashion, since I never took a typing class, but my modified 3 fingers on one hand, 4 fingers on the left is quick enough for just about everything I do.
Would I fail Tracy's typing test? I dunno. I can't do that neat, "type one thing on the screen while looking at someone else standing in your office" trick that most accomplished touch typists seem to accomplish. But you know, my former boss was probably in the 90 wpm range, but he never actually produced an email that made any sense. Sure produced a lot of them though. Sometimes speed isn't an asset. heh. -ajb -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
