> On the contrary,
> as any touch typist will vouch, letter combinations that use
> alternate-hand keystrokes are much faster to type than those
> using same-hand keystrokes.
>
> AF
>
> P.S. I learned to touch type in 1975 on an old Remington typewriter!
[Dons 'Pitman-trained secretary' hat (my working life before deciding to go
back to school to be a doc)]... I'm not at all sure that alternate hand
keystrokes are faster to type, let alone *much* faster. There are certainly
some letter combinations that are faster to type than others - I imagine
these depend on frequency of use (so will vary depending on what you type
and how frequently). Typing (or learning to) on a manual typewriter needs
different finger and hand movements and I can imagine that alternate hand
keystrokes are, or were, faster on a manual typewriter... but there aren't a
lot of those around now! Electronic typewriters were more similar to
computer keyboards (though *not* the same!) - I don't think keystroke order
makes a whole heap of difference when one types at ~80 wpm? I don't ask the
deparment secretary (we have one for five consultants) to type anything for
me - it's far quicker to do it myself than to go through the
dictate-correct-correct-correct procedure. I do email stuff to her to be
printed and sent out/distributed - seems to work okay. Within the hospital,
everything is done on email so 'finished output' (as a secretary might call
it) is a bit of a non-issue.
There's a big difference between a secretary and a typist... we may not need
typists but we definitely need our secretary!
|