

Ask HN: Improving my typing? - mfincham

Can anyone recommend a resource for people with decades of typing experience looking to reform how they type? There are a lot of &quot;learn to type&quot; resources but they tend to focus on &quot;beginner touch typing&quot; skills.<p>Specifically I&#x27;m keen to see if I can adopt a more ergonomic typing method and make use of more digits.
======
Qwertynomics
We specialize in teaching typing skills to children as young as 7 with our
software and methodology but works equally well with adults who would like to
learn correct touch typing skills. We have successfully taught Dr's, Lawers,
Medical secretaries and Emergency call centre personal type correctly, with
high accuracy and speed in just 10 hours. The special secret is not to look at
your hands. Our program provides you with all the things you will need to type
effectively. With a few weeks of dedication and correct practice skills some
of our adult students typing over 60 wpm. Adults love learning to type with
our program and have lots of fun.

Try a free trial at www.qwertynomics.ca or contact me if you have any
questions.

Zoe Clements - Founder of Qwertynomics.

------
techdog
If you want to get radical about it, you can reconfigure your keyboard to a
known-efficient configuration such as the Dvorak layout. As you probably know,
the QWERTY layout was specifically designed to be un-ergonomic and inefficient
(so as to keep typists from jamming the mechanical keys of early typewriters).
Dvorak and other layouts are known to be conducive to rapid typing, but your
skills would not be transferable across multiple machines.

So it's really a question, first, of whether you intend to stay with QWERTY.
If so, I recommend [http://www.keybr.com](http://www.keybr.com)

~~~
yzzxy
> As you probably know, the QWERTY layout was specifically designed to be un-
> ergonomic and inefficient (so as to keep typists from jamming the mechanical
> keys of early typewriters)

This is false. Please stop repeating it. Dvorak is also not well-proven to be
better.

[http://www.economist.com/node/196071](http://www.economist.com/node/196071)

