How Fast Can You Type?

[mcgillianaire]

100% Accuracy is the Key. Post your results as a comment. Just curious how fast/slow-accurate I compare to my readers. :)

Comments

[loganberrybunny.livejournal.com]

(There are several tests to choose from on that site; I did the one-minute "zebras" test, since that was the default.)

69 wpm with 98% accuracy. Not bad at all for a non-touch typist! I might have been slightly faster except for "recognized", which I always spell with an S. I don't think it made any real difference, though.

I'm also a non-touch typist!

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

I got 83wpm with 100% accuracy on that one. (Btw, have you seen the touch type link on Wiki?!) And sympathies with "recognized" - I thought about how that would affect British-spellers when they did it. Thanks to my 'international' upbringing I have no problem switching in-and-out when doing these typing things. I only get worried with words that throw my non-touch type fingers awry.

Re: I'm also a non-touch typist!

[loganberrybunny.livejournal.com]

The strange thing about words like that is that the OED universally prefers the "-ize" forms, and yet it's far less common in British English than the "-ise" forms. Americans tend to "correct" it from S to Z when they see it, thinking that they're safe as the OED agrees with them, but for whatever reason it just hasn't caught on over here. As it happens I reverted that very "correction" to H. D. G. Leveson-Gower's Wikipedia page yesterday.

Re: I'm also a non-touch typist!

[(Anonymous)]

-ize is closer to the Latin I understand. In English both forms were used until the Americans standardised -ize as the only 'correct' spelling. In reaction to that move, -ise became the preferred spelling elsewhere.

Who are you dear madam/sir from Milton, Queensland? :)

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Very interesting!

Re: I'm also a non-touch typist!

[pappubahry.livejournal.com]

The -ize forms are older in English. The Oxford says that, to someone from a few centuries ago, the -ise spellings would have looked French.

It's a bit weird that they haven't adapted to the modern British practice though.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

>It's a bit weird that they haven't adapted
They = French or Americans?

Recognise is part of a group of words I particularly like. I am not an expert linguist but I've read about the possible (definite?) link between the Sanskrit word Jñāna (ज्ञान) and the Greek word Gnosis (γνώσις) meaning knowledge. And from that we have so many words in modern Indo-European languages. It's fascinating!

Re: I'm also a non-touch typist!

[loganberrybunny.livejournal.com]

(Btw, have you seen the touch type link on Wiki?!)

The copyvio notice? I have now. I didn't read enough of the old version to tell how much of it was a copyvio, but it wasn't a great article even beforehand. "Idiosyncratic typing" sums mine up well, though!

Re: I'm also a non-touch typist!

[mrputter.livejournal.com]

This thread confuses me. What link? What copyvio notice?

Re: I'm also a non-touch typist!

[loganberrybunny.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_type

Still there as I type this.

Re: I'm also a non-touch typist!

[pappubahry.livejournal.com]

You can't possibly type 83wpm and need to look at the keyboard.

I would do this test, but I am still quite handicapped by the French keyboards.

Re: I'm also a non-touch typist!

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

>You can't possibly type 83wpm and need to look at the keyboard.
By touch-type I meant I don't use the proper fingering. It's true I don't look at the keyboard but sometimes I do because I don't use the right fingering.

>but I am still quite handicapped by the French keyboards.
This is a fantastic reason to do it! C'mon Pirry, show us what you got.

Re: I'm also a non-touch typist!

[pappubahry.livejournal.com]

Gross speed 50wpm, accuracy 90%, corrected speed 45wpm.

Re: I'm also a non-touch typist!

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

That's bloody impressive for less than a week's worth of acclimatization. I suspect you'd screw up the Ws, Zs and Ms. I envy the fact that you have a pound symbol on your keypad. Do you have any clue how I can create a simpler shortcut to type it without going through Character Map (which I can't work because I don't have the numeric keypad on my lappy)?

Re: I'm also a non-touch typist!

[mrputter.livejournal.com]

> how I can create a simpler shortcut

My "solution" for #$&^*@!!!ing laptop keyboards is to have a text file with a few symbols in it that I use often but are otherwise not-easily-typable. I then stick a shortcut to that text file the the start menu, and assign it a shortcut (Shift-Alt-E in my case, but obviously you can change to whatever suits you). So if I need to type one of those symbols, I Shift-Alt-E, arrow-keys-to-select-letter, Ctrl-C to copy it, Alt-F4 to close the notepad window and Ctrl-V to paste it; rarely takes more than a second or so.

I've idly thought about writing a program (to replace the text file) that when it comes up gives me a menu so I only have to hit a single key (e.g.: A - ¢, B - £, D - ©, etc...) and the window is closed with the appropriate letter placed in the copy/paste buffer automatically, saving me most of the keystrokes. However I don't use Windows enough (only at AWA) to really need it that much. It wouldn't take me long, though; let me know if you'd find something like that useful...


(of course, if anyone else out there has a better workaround, I'm all ears)

[swimanubis.livejournal.com]

only 72 wpm :( apparently traveling is effecting my skills.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Hehe. Where are you right now and when do we smoke shisha in London's Arab Quarter? :)

[swimanubis.livejournal.com]

I'm in Dahab, Egypt. Not sure but I might be going home, maybe via London, sometime in Nov.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

I would recommend flying through London. Accommodation, good food, the company and shisha on the house!! How can you resist?

[mrputter.livejournal.com]

I tried a variety of different passages and times, and pretty consistently got 68 WPM ± 1. I was at 100% accuracy for all of them except the "Tigers in the Wild" passage where I dropped down to 96%; the damn Harvard comma kept tripping me up.

(Normally my fingers are aware of when they make a mistake, even when my brain isn't consciously aware of it, and I backspace-and-correct without thinking about it. Unfortunately, this typing test automatically advances when you hit a space, and you can't backspace over the word break to go back and correct the prior word, so every time I hit the spacebar without inserting the Harvard comma (which I do not normally use), I would ineffectually backspace, then type a comma, then a space, which would take the place of the following word, and so all of a sudden I'd be two words out before my conscious brain had a chance to do anything about it. Grr.)

No, I'm not a touch typist. Nor do I particularly care to be. 65-70 WPM is plenty fast enough for me.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Intreshtin! I never thought of that being an issue. 68 WPM ± 1 would've been adequate for the job I've just been accepted to. The temp agency asked for 30 WPM and the employer asked for 50, presumably with 100% accuracy at either speed. I remember I could type close to 100 WPM with 100% accuracy a couple years ago but it might've just been the program. It's probably a sign of a drastic reduction in MSN chatting during said period and I blame that squarely on dubaiwalla and vingt! ;)