= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard comments on Post ridiculous munchkin ideas! - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1240)
Goodness yes. I favour my rant on the topic in the Procedural Knowledge Gaps post a couple of years ago.
I see you already have people replying that they are special snowflakes who don't need this despite spending their lives attached to a computer. They are wrong.
I would say QWERTY is still a vast improvement over not bothering at all, and setting one's keymap to Dvorak and remembering that the letters on one's keyboard are lies would count as a trivial inconvenience, which is why I didn't mention it. (And I'm still on QWERTY myself.)
It seems like your comment applies to me, so I hope you won't mind if I interrogate you a bit. I just read the linked rant, and I see that you offer no citations or justifications for your claims. You talk about complaints of sore fingers; I have no such complaints. I don't have RSI problems despite over a decade of work in the computer industry (paying attention to basic ergonomics helps).
So I am really curious (and please don't take my question as hostile, it's not meant to be): you make such strong, heartfelt claims that it's absolutely necessary to touch-type and that people who don't touch-type are NOT TYPING PROPERLY and DON'T KNOW HOW TO TYPE etc., but... can we have some backup for these claims? Citations? Any evidence at all?
(Also, what are your thoughts on the reasons I provide in my comment here for why touch-typing, even if it radically increased my typing speed per se, would not actually save me much time?)