Printable View
Hi all,
I have been learning touch typing for past few months.
My speed has slowly improved and it is currently 37wpm.
I just wanted to know how fast you guys can type.
What could be the maximum speed one can attain in touch typing?
How fast can you type?
35 - 55 for me. The general speed of a really good touch typist can do up to 80 words per minute. Without having four hands thats pretty impressive.
35 - 55 wpm. Not bad for a two-finger typist. :D
I can usually get around 60wpm - but my accuracy goes up and down. Sometimes it's perfect, other days I seem to be back-spacing every other word.
That sounds familiar. I have no idea what my actual typing rate is.Quote:
Originally Posted by sean
--
Mats
I generally get around 70-80WPM with ~98% accuracy on two minute typing tests, but on the full ten minute test I got 57WPM with 93% accuracy. You'd be surprised how tired your fingers get after trying to go all out for 10 minutes.
EDIT: Heh, I took a quick three minute test and got 60WPM with 90% accuracy. I guess it's not a good idea to take a typing test first thing after you wake up.
Never done a test, and my writing limit is usually limited more by my thoughts than by my fingers, but my guess from posting at forums such as this one would be that I type about a word per second. So, 60WPM.
I am officially a member of the slow poster's club, clocking in at 19 wpm - 73% accuracy. I am not a two finger typist, but I do horribly on typing tests. I guess I would benefit from some practice.
I usually average 65 wpm with 100% accuracy (I know when I make mistakes and correct them). A big part of doing well on the tests is knowing the words in the test. Doing a test for a general office clerk is much different then typing up something involving full chemical names.
Of course in computer programming the speed generally means jack and you are hardly ever just doing flat our typing.
Thanks all for voting.
:DQuote:
35 - 55 wpm. Not bad for a two-finger typist.
I am bit surprised there are actually programmers who are two finger typists.
I can type fast with two fingers but usually the speed would average around 25wpm.
Also it is harder for me to think if I "hunt and peck" the keys.This is what forced me to
learn touch typing.
Anyway that's a great speed for two finger typist.
Initially my speed was below than that with horrible accuracy.Then after some persistent efforts with typing software it improved to the current 37wpm with 97% accuracy.Quote:
I am officially a member of the slow poster's club, clocking in at 19 wpm - 73% accuracy. I am not a two finger typist, but I do horribly on typing tests. I guess I would benefit from some practice.
I agree speed would be reduced while programming than when typing ordinary text.Quote:
Of course in computer programming the speed generally means jack and you are hardly ever just doing flat our typing.
Nevertheless touch typing can take the burden of looking the screen and keyboard back and forth.
Yes, but how many of you type properly? I mean the proper hand-layout and everything. If you do that, your hands should not get tired after 10 minutes of typing ;).
Otherwise, I get 50-65WPM. But it depends on the day and the keyboard. If I count backspace as a "word" then I'd probably get 2500WPM ;).
When my Mum was a bit younger she had a job that required 90WPM, which she can do :-). Hey I brag? It's what I do.
Interestingly enough
Quote:
As of 2005, Barbara Blackburn is the fastest typist in the world, according to The Guinness Book of World Records. Using the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard, she has maintained 150 wpm for 50 minutes, 170 wpm for shorter periods of time, and has been clocked at a peak speed of 212 wpm.
sometimes I just sit there and yell at my computer to see if the words turn into text. Unfortunately this rarely works.
Touch typing is pretty nice and IMHO, every programmer should put in some effort and learn it. Generally I clock around 90-95 WPM with about 97 % accuracy on small pieces of text, the 2 minute kind. On larger texts, I average around 85 WPM. I use all my fingers by the way :)
I'm around 90-95 too. But I don't use my right thumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by PING
I'd be curious to know if she writes her essays this fast.Quote:
As of 2005, Barbara Blackburn is the fastest typist in the world, according to The Guinness Book of World Records. Using the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard, she has maintained 150 wpm for 50 minutes, 170 wpm for shorter periods of time, and has been clocked at a peak speed of 212 wpm.
I thought everyone learnt exactly where every key on the keyboard is after getting a IM or just going to a school where they demand you to write a full A4 essay or report or whatever! >.< schools demand too much these days, me thinks ;)
Anyways, anyone got a link to a good test? Don't trust Google on this one, 'cause I ain't gonna take a test for no use :P
True! I've wanted to get some formal training in typing for a while... I did a couple of classes in middle school and what not, but I'm still basically a hunt-and-peck kinda guy.Quote:
I'd be curious to know if she writes her essays this fast.
My speed just came with practice - and when I'm focusing on doing it smoothly I can use 5 or 6 different fingers. I'm sure my speed would drastically improve if I trained myself to use every finger.
Muscle memory plays a very important role in touch typing. If you are going to 'learn' touch typing, I'd suggest starting off with the dvorak layout instead of the qwerty one. You can get speeds much higher than what you could on a qwerty layout, with less finger movement. It's very difficult to 'unlearn' a particular layout once your fingers are used to it.Quote:
My speed just came with practice - and when I'm focusing on doing it smoothly I can use 5 or 6 different fingers. I'm sure my speed would drastically improve if I trained myself to use every finger.
Ditto. I am about 110-120 and do not use my right thumb or right pinky. Much to many people's annoyance I do not use the ten key pad very swiftly at all. I am just as fast as any speedy 10-key pad user using regular typing. After a point, type-speed is simply wasted on us programmer folk :( To be frank, anything around 40wpm is fast enough to code rapidly.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
I do.Quote:
Yes, but how many of you type properly? I mean the proper hand-layout and everything.
I get ~60 WPM sustained, 80 WPM for 2 minute tests. Accuracy I don't remember, it was in the high 90's.
I use all my fingers (alternating thumbs for space, right pinky for backspace and enter).
~69wpm with good accuracy if the test I took following the link on this page is to be believed: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001188.html.
I use my left thumb for space and nothing else (occasionally left alt or windows), my right thumb does bugger all. Pinky on my left hand is on shift / caps lock / ctrl duty (left ring takes tab). Writing about it I've just realised how I never use right shift or ctrl. Ever. Also I tend to use my right ring finger where I should probably be using my pinky (everything from P to the right).
I get around ~95% accuracy on most typing, with or without looking at the keyboard. I know by know where each key is, and using the QWERTY keyboard, the little nubs on F and J really help a lot.
My speed varies . . . from 30 WPM when I'm taking dictation, to over 100 WPM when I don't care about accuracy . . . but usually I'm sitting at a comfortable 75 WPM.
I don't think as fast as I type.
After hearing about many benefits of dvorak layout I wanna try it out.Quote:
Muscle memory plays a very important role in touch typing. If you are going to 'learn' touch typing, I'd suggest starting off with the dvorak layout instead of the qwerty one. You can get speeds much higher than what you could on a qwerty layout, with less finger movement. It's very difficult to 'unlearn' a particular layout once your fingers are used to it.
But I am just curious whether all Operating Systems would support it or not.(I noticed Windows XP supports it)
Currently my speed in qwerty layout is around 45wpm(certain improvement after some practice!) and a switch to dvorak is going to be harder than learning it from scratch i guess.
Also I don't know whether I would retain my memory for qwerty if i try dvorak.Anybody type in both layouts?.
I've heard of lots of people who use both and need about two minutes for the switch. Less, if they switch regularly.
Linux supports dvorak, and I don't see a reason why Mac shouldn't.
I'm a slow typist, I guess. I never clocked myself though.
I use mostly my middle fingers, my thumbs and my indicators. Rarely I use other fingers, except when drawing key combinations like SHIFT+ and company.
I'm unfortunately also too clumsy for my taste. If I took a test I'd say I'd get most probably a 20% to 30% error rate. I do notice most of the errors though and correct them. I also tend to think ahead of what 'm writing and because of that have been justly accused of having a sometimes confusing writing. This is compounded with the fact I rarely bother proof-reading when posting on forums or writing emails.
I don't have any personal interest in learning touch typing, though. It's terribly boring and I'm happy with how I perform, regardless.
Personally, I learnt touch typing because I couldn't keep up with 9-10 IM conversations and at the same time hunt for the next key to press. :)
So, according to the test, 53 WPM with 6 errors. Many more errors that I corrected while typing - my main problem is inaccuracy.
>> So, according to the test, 53 WPM with 6 errors. Many more errors that I corrected while typing - my main problem is inaccuracy.
And is this by touch or hunting/pecking?
>> Never done a test, and my writing limit is usually limited more by my thoughts than by my fingers
You generally come across as rather articulate, so maybe that's a good thing. :)
Touch, but I lose really a lot of time because I notice my errors by touch, too, and can't go on when I make one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiani
:DQuote:
>> Never done a test, and my writing limit is usually limited more by my thoughts than by my fingers
You generally come across as rather articulate, so maybe that's a good thing. :)
62 wpm, with 100% accuracy; I made two mistakes but corrected them. However I think that type test can never be completely accurate; apart from the fact that you type a lot faster when you type from your head, it also depends on what the type test wants you to type; it can give you sentences similar to "George ate an apple and threw up." or sentences like "Cryptographically secure linear feedback shift register based stream ciphers". Also, I don't know about you guys, but I'm extremely nervous when I do a type test, and specifically with this one could feel that I wasn't typing 100%.
Cheers,
Gabe
That test was a little tough for me considering it was fairly short. I ended up getting 64WPM with 93% accuracy. The errors I made and didn't pick up seemed to mainly be on spelling differences between UK English and American English. For instance, I typed "colors" instead of the "colours" that read in the passage. Just force of habit, I guess. Like Thantos said, a big part of doing well on these tests is knowing the word set.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahluka
To be honest, I did that test a second time and ended up with an Old English passage that I did horrible on; getting something like 48WPM with 85% accuracy. Every time it said something like "thy," I ended up typing "they" and having to correct it. This makes me commend our forum members who are not native English speakers getting good results on these tests. I'm sure if they never have, they'd find that they get much better results on a test in their native language.
... and since other have posted about how they type... I do not type properly. I don't use every finger... I'm not a two finger typist, though... I'd say I'm more of a seven finger typist. My index and middle fingers handle all of the letters and numbers while my pinkies handle the shifts and some punctutaion. My right thumb does most of the space work. My left thumb and two ring fingers do almost nothing... sometimes I'll catch myself actually using them in place of my pink, but not regularly. Basically, I have no consistency. Any given key can be touched by a few different fingers depending on where my hand placement is at the given time.
On the other hand, we have the advantage of not being too used to a specific form. I've been typing both "color" and "colour" forever.Quote:
This makes me commend our forum members who are not native English speakers getting good results on these tests.
I suppose that's true, but don't you find yourself sometimes typing "Farbe?" :)Quote:
Originally Posted by CornedBee
I agree when you have no habits, it's probably easier... and I would also say that it would be easier for most non-native English speakers to type in English than most English speakers could in a foreign language simply because no matter where you are in the world you're seeing and hearing English a lot at a very young age. I still believe typing in a second language puts you at a decent disadvantage than when typing in your primary language. Since I've made my post I found a test that allowed me to type in another language that I know. I took the test a few times with a few different passages and ultimately I found myself with a 10WPM decrease.
>> I still believe typing in a second language puts you at a decent disadvantage than when typing in your primary language.
Yup. Except when it's funny, like when the menu at a Chinese restaurant says "Killing Duck on Spit" or "Puchase with crediT MORE expensive". :D
>> I'd say I'm more of a seven finger typist.
Wow. Like Liberace!
If I am generating original text, I can hit 120 wpm, but I usualyl hve to go back and fix the typos. I never have been good at transcription.
Not in English. Perhaps if I were typing in French. But when I use English, I'm actually completely switching to the language, including thinking in it.Quote:
I suppose that's true, but don't you find yourself sometimes typing "Farbe?"
From the page linked.Quote:
Your speed was: 95wpm.
You made 3 mistakes, your mistakes are shown in bold text:
Let the reader be introduced to Lady Carbuy, upon whose character and doings much will depend of whatever interest these pages may have, as she sits at her writing-table in her own room in her own house in Welbeck Street. Lady Carbuy spent many hours at her desk, and wrote many letters wrote also very much beside letters. She spoke of herself in these days as a woman devoted to Literature, always spelling the word with a big L. Something of the nature of her devotion may be learned by the persual of three letters which on this morning she had written with a quickly running hand.
Touch typing of course :).
*edit*
Oh and, English is not my native language. My native language is Chinese, though, and typing in Chinese is certainly quite different from typing in English (more different than, say, between English and French or other European languages).
I think my main barrier is not being able to read ahead too much. Typing alone takes too much CPU time already. It should be a lot faster if I memorized the passage. In a sense I am doing reading-typing-reading-typing alternatively, one word at a time, as opposed to asynchronously :).
It would be, but that's not the point of the test. The idea is to be able to transcribe what you're seeing regardless of whether you've seen it before or not. You can take that same test with the same passage a dozen times and on the last time you'd probably increase your typing speed by 15-20WPM. This is why a really good typist should pretty much be able to type any language, barring any non-English characters, regardless of whether they know the words or not, at very fast speeds. Like most others in this thread have said, already... they, I, and most average typists are much faster typing something original from their head than they are transcribing some text they've never read. It's commonly seen as a good thing, but from a purely typist prospective, the few I've spoken to (secretaries and such whom I've seen type close to 110-120WPM) would tell you that when transcribing you shouldn't even look at the word, but rather just the individual character.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
Wouldn't reading faster actually help you type faster? Because generally you don't look at individual characters when reading, but rather the whole word.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
It does make you faster, as I said because it allows you to read ahead, but it also makes you susceptible to habit. While it will increase your speed in words your familiar with, if you are typing words that you are unfamiliar with it will decrease accuracy which ultimately decreases speed when your transcription needs to be perfect. This is how I've been told. Like I posted in my example before, if I see the word "thy," my brain automatically thinks "they" and types it. This is a problem and my eventual results showed that. Reading ahead sounds like a great thing, but for transcription it's not. It's the equivalent to a comprehension rating in reading speeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by glo
I've only been able to touch type for a about 3 years now, and I really can't do it that well on a keyboard that I haven't familiarized myself with. My slow development is probably due to the fact that I didn't learn "properly". You know, like from a program that tells you what finger goes where. I just kind of "figured it out".
I average on 35-55wpm (most correct)... but I'm faster at writing C. :D
It is strange though, how you can type any letter and/or word that you want just by thinking it, yet I couldn't tell you the location of every letter on the keyboard.
It's the difference between muscle memory and visual memory. Two completely different parts of the brain. Think about how many times you've written a particular word vs. the number of times you've studied a keyboard's key positions. When your brain thinks of the word you want to type it doesn't visualize the keyboard at all, it simply remembers what your hands are supposed to do when you type the word. Have you ever noticed that when you try to type a word you aren't quite familiar with that you kind stutter thinking about where to press your finger next? Maybe you even look down at the keyboard? Just the way the body and brain works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yarin
This is actually the preferred way according to the fastest typists in the world. Its the method I used and I dont have any probl;em typing at a fast rate. Its mroe about how often you type because you need to type. Typiing just to be typing wont really improve your typing skills that much compared to typing because you need to get a program written or a letter or whatever finished. Dont get too hung up on your typing speed anyway, even though I can hit 120 wpm in short bursts, that just means more time between sessions while I figure out the next line of code. Anything above 30 wpm is perfectly acceptable, unless you are a professional data entry specialist, higher rates wont really improve your productivity. Like most skills, it starts out as a concious effort, and once you get to teh point where you are usign that skill nto to learn that skill, btu rather as a means to accomplish a task, it gradualyl moves to a sub-concious effort. I too have to think about it if I want to tell you where on the keyboard a specific key is, yet I can type all day without lookign at the keyboard, although I do have the bad habit of gazing down while typing even though Im not actually focusing on the keys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yarin
That said I find this website helpful in learning key positions and working with practice text to learn to touch type. What holds me back is bad dexterity, honestly.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
Thanks CornedBee.Quote:
Originally Posted by CornedBee
Mac does support dvorak.
Switching to dvorak ain't easy as now my memory for qwerty layout comes in the way.I guess i should have learned it first.
Haha, maybe I'm just a bigot, but I thought that going for the 2-finger hunt-and-peck style to touch typing was just a natural evolution.
I recently switched to the 10-finger-system from some custom, maybe 6 finger system, as sitting a whole weekend switching between gaming and programming eventually made my left hand hurt like hell.
I typed 80 wpm before switch, and I'm almost at that speed again now. There's maybe a month since I switched.
Which brings up an interesting phenomenon in my typing style - straight typing I can do for hours without any pain, but actual computer usage really strains my wrists because all my keyboard shortcuts are on the left-hand. I didn't plan that - they're just they shortcuts that made sense to me and seemed easy to reach - but now my left wrist strains anytime I use a GUI.Quote:
a whole weekend switching between gaming and programming eventually made my left hand hurt like hell.
Haha. Well, I made my left hand travel way too far in comparison to the right hand, so I was repeatedly stretching its fingers all over the keyboard. My wrist didn't hurt, per se, but the hand itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by sean
After switching to 10 fingers, I feel how much easier it is to type. I mean, there's minimal movement to all the letters, and it's so much easier. I still feel it's harder to get up to speed on, however, if you wake up tired and start using the computer immediately. Still getting used to it, I guess.
typingtest.com can tell you typing speed pretty quick... easy to take test on there.
I've got a thought. Perhaps music players (piano, violin, flute, etc.) have more accuracy, due to their constant practice on instruments? Let's have a show of hands of musicians . . .
Piano + saxophone + clarinet here. I don't think that's the reason, though. I was already typing pretty fast before I started playing.
Well, it has to help . . . especially instruments like the violin, where you have to place your fingers in the correct place, really quickly. That must help your finger memory.
That's the case for just about every instrument.
I don't think it helped for me with the speed, though. Sure made my typing more rhythmic however (no kidding).
What I meant is, with the violin, your finger must be in the *exact* right place, otherwise the sound is high or low. With the piano, you've got some margin of error.
I think it's the case that anything which improves dexterity will improve accuracy in anything else over time.
True enough . . .
I did a few speed tests, and my speed and accuracy vary depending on the age of the text (no joke). Ransome's Swallows and Amazons is 75 WPM, but an except from Paolini's Eragon is closer to 80 WPM. (Based on a trial of three different sections from each book)
Last time I was timed I got around 95 to 105 WPM. I refused to use the homerow idealogy much to the chagrin of my teacher in high school. I made a claim that I could type as fast or faster than her with equivalent accuracy using my method of typing. We did the contest and I won hands down. She told me after that to continue using my technique because she really did not think what she was teaching could improve my speed and would probably reduce it.
I learned to type by playing adventure games like Kings Quest 1. I had to learn to type really fast in order to type commands before some ogre would kill me. Honestly that is how I learned to type and it has served me well. I do not use my thumbs at all and I don't stay on home row. Shift + any character is probably my slowest typing motion. But at this point I've completely memorized my keyboard so I know where everything is spacially and relative to other keys.
I started with all standard (hands on home row, all keys with the right fingers), and got to ~80 WPM. After a few years of typing like that, i started making my typing more "flexible" (borrowing fingers when one finger is overloaded, not staying on the home row, etc), and got to ~95-100.
Another thing I noticed is that with much practice (I had some formal training in typing when I was in elementary school), my fingers will move simultaneously to different characters in a word (before the first finger actually hits the key). It's like multi-threading.
No, that's just superscalar computing ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
>> No, that's just superscalar computing
And all this time I've been calling it dyslexia. Silly me. :D
Dyslexia: out-of-order execution of letters. :D