[anon(10321802)]

Because this topic comes up often in the CB Forums, I just had to share this article:

Ready, text, go: typing speeds on mobiles rival keyboard users

You should definitely read the entire article for details, but the main takeaways are:

• Single finger typing averaged 29 wpm (words per minute)
• Two-thumb typing averaged 38 wpm
• The average speed for computer keyboard typing is 52 wpm
• One participant in the study hit 85 wpm typing on their phone
• Teenagers tapped out sentences at an average of about 40 wpm, while those in their 40s and 50s managed only 29 wpm and 26 wpm
• Autocorrect improved typing speeds by nearly 9 wpm, but word prediction slowed people by 2 wpm, distracting them and making them choose suggested words

No mention of PKB vs VKB, but I think the assumption is it's all VKB.

[bb10adopter111]

Context is everything here. There is zero value to typing faster than you can compose thoughtful and effective prose. I can type much faster on a full-sized keyboard (85+ wpm) than on a BlackBerry VKB (40+ wpm), and faster on a VKB than I can on a BlackBerry PKB (35+ wpm), but in the real world, that's of very limited use.

In the real world, I care more about editing than writing, as I spend 2-3x more time editing most if my writing than composing it. And when it comes to editing, nothing beats a full-sized keyboard with shortcuts, macros, etc.

Posted via CB10

[Rootbrian]

Context is everything here. There is zero value to typing faster than you can compose thoughtful and effective prose. I can type much faster on a full-sized keyboard (85+ wpm) than on a BlackBerry VKB (40+ wpm), and faster on a VKB than I can on a BlackBerry PKB (35+ wpm), but in the real world, that's of very limited use.

In the real world, I care more about editing than writing, as I spend 2-3x more time editing most if my writing than composing it. And when it comes to editing, nothing beats a full-sized keyboard with shortcuts, macros, etc.

Posted via CB10

Yup, nothing beats the full size keyboard that sits at and lives on my desk. I'll take that over any smaller screen any day for composing really long e-mails, or putting out a wordpress article.

From my BlackBerry Q5 on Freedom Mobile 3G HSPA+

[idssteve]

A thread well overdue! As one who's attempted such quantification myself, all I can say is good luck sorting it all out. Lol.

This Old Bold doesn't play very nice with that link but from what I can decipher thru Opera Mini's scrambled view, their numbers seem low, to me. Are they defining "words" as 5 characters? ?? Are they permitting errors? If so, how many? Or are errors subtracted from character count? Or from word count?? Or best yet, are corrections integrated into overall wpm??

As pointed out earlier, typing productivity is most usefully measured from inception to edited submittal. What good would a super fast wpm be if the typed product were an embarrassment to submit? ???

In addition to "super speed" character input, a usefully productive typing device must also:

1) Collaborate to minimize entry errors

2) Collaborate to proof & edit entry errors that do happen

3) Both 1 AND 2

3 is why this 8 year old Bold is what's generating this product this instant. Lol. That's not to say I wouldn't be faster with fewer errors and best editing experience at my "clacky M" equipped desktop. Problem is, that PC, and the desk it's on, isn't with me right now. They just won't fit any of MY pockets. Lol.

Even if it were in front of me this instant, it's not automatically pre-destined that the demands imposed by that platform on both hands, seating posture, etc, makes it my first choice for a given task & time. Especially for comfortably collaborating with MY creative process THIS time.

Sometimes I do a lot of typing while doing other things... Like relaxing & sipping coffee. Lol. Tying up both hands for typing might improve "word-per-minute" performance but actually impair overall "page-per-day" productivity. Especially if that typing must communicate creative concepts. Creativity frequently commands its own schedule. Regardless of desktop availability. Lol.

First obstacle to defining a usefully "universal" wpm quantification is relevance of WPM to a given use case. Are we talking "burst" or "sustained" ? Are testing texts originating straight from thought? Or parroted from a previously composed paper page? Or from a separate screen?? Or displayed on the same screen displaying the typed output??? Or displayed on the same input device being typed on itself???? My relatively tiny studies indicate that things change GREATly when some (most?) users are forced to shift eyes looking away from the input device while reading text to be typed.

Very different parts of brain & muscle-memory interface get implemented when typing a previously composed manuscript, eye to hand, as opposed to originating that composition, thought to hand. Very, VERY different use case AND wpm outcomes that I'm convinced varies with individual learning style. "Eye to hand" proves easiest to configure testing regimes around. "Thought to hand" proving most elusive of predictable quantification. Especially thru on-line testing schemes. Imo.

Possibly more relevant is overall productivity throughout a given day. Or month... Which proves pretty incompatible with 5 minute wpm "online surveys". Imo. Also, how do measuring apps compare across platforms? How should BBOS typing speed apps compare with iOS or Android?

Could go on & on. Since I'm SOooo enjoying typing this with Agent99.30, I must exercise restraint lest I fill Kevin's server... Lol. To publicly post my typing rates, which measure criteria should I post? ??? Regardless, I made that mistake ONCE. Got called a liar for my troubles. And for what? ?? How useful would that data be without a LOT of clarification?

I will, however, post my relative hardware comparisons of daily productivity. Derived from company billing records, dating back 10+ yrs. Fwiw. NO raw data, tho. And ANY relevance to anyone ELSE's use case is NOT claimed. Ayor. Fwiw.

100% (arbitrary reference) Bold 9900

150+% "clacky M" desktop

120% Toughbook CF30 (non-waterproof KB)

105% Bold 9650

85% Classic

65% K2LE

60% K2 & Q10 tied

55% D60

45% K1 & Z30 tied

30% Pearl

15% Kyocera 3035

Some of those vary greatly between WPM "burst" and daily productivity. For example Q10 can hold with about 95% of Bold 9900 for strictly WPM. It falls on its face for subsequent editing, tho. Try as I might, Bold's trackpad still reigns supreme for editing duties. Imo. Bluetooth mouse, and other contraptions, significantly assist Android handsets... All of the above comparisons were made "naked", no added hardware. Fwiw. Hardware to assist grasp of the giant K's do help.

Ok, wife's beaming "that look" at my left hand. Even tho I've maintained eye contact throughout dinner. AND consumed my meal well ahead of her... With un-distracted fork in right hand. Lol. At least she's not peering over a desktop PC! Lol.

I'll engage her to proof the post, since I have not. She seems to enjoy that. And she just might find an error! Bet she finds an error of some type! lol.

edit: she found an error! missed a line return for Toughbook... getting sloppy. lol.

[Chuck Finley69]

A thread well overdue! As one who's attempted such quantification myself, all I can say is good luck sorting it all out. Lol.

This Old Bold doesn't play very nice with that link but from what I can decipher thru Opera Mini's scrambled view, their numbers seem low, to me. Are they defining "words" as 5 characters? ?? Are they permitting errors? If so, how many? Or are errors subtracted from character count? Or from word count?? Or best yet, are corrections integrated into overall wpm??

As pointed out earlier, typing productivity is most usefully measured from inception to edited submittal. What good would a super fast wpm be if the typed product were an embarrassment to submit? ???

In addition to "super speed" character input, a usefully productive typing device must also:

1) Collaborate to minimize entry errors

2) Collaborate to proof & edit entry errors that do happen

3) Both 1 AND 2

3 is why this 8 year old Bold is what's generating this product this instant. Lol. That's not to say I wouldn't be faster with fewer errors and best editing experience at my "clacky M" equipped desktop. Problem is, that PC, and the desk it's on, isn't with me right now. They just won't fit any of MY pockets. Lol.

Even if it were in front of me this instant, it's not automatically pre-destined that the demands imposed by that platform on both hands, seating posture, etc, makes it my first choice for a given task & time. Especially for comfortably collaborating with MY creative process THIS time.

Sometimes I do a lot of typing while doing other things... Like relaxing & sipping coffee. Lol. Tying up both hands for typing might improve "word-per-minute" performance but actually impair overall "page-per-day" productivity. Especially if that typing must communicate creative concepts. Creativity frequently commands its own schedule. Regardless of desktop availability. Lol.

First obstacle to defining a usefully "universal" wpm quantification is relevance of WPM to a given use case. Are we talking "burst" or "sustained" ? Are testing texts originating straight from thought? Or parroted from a previously composed paper page? Or from a separate screen?? Or displayed on the same screen displaying the typed output??? Or displayed on the same input device being typed on itself???? My relatively tiny studies indicate that things change GREATly when some (most?) users are forced to shift eyes looking away from the input device while reading text to be typed.

Very different parts of brain & muscle-memory interface get implemented when typing a previously composed manuscript, eye to hand, as opposed to originating that composition, thought to hand. Very, VERY different use case AND wpm outcomes that I'm convinced varies with individual learning style. "Eye to hand" proves easiest to configure testing regimes around. "Thought to hand" proving most elusive of predictable quantification. Especially thru on-line testing schemes. Imo.

Possibly more relevant is overall productivity throughout a given day. Or month... Which proves pretty incompatible with 5 minute wpm "online surveys". Imo. Also, how do measuring apps compare across platforms? How should BBOS typing speed apps compare with iOS or Android?

Could go on & on. Since I'm SOooo enjoying typing this with Agent99.30, I must exercise restraint lest I fill Kevin's server... Lol. To publicly post my typing rates, which measure criteria should I post? ??? Regardless, I made that mistake ONCE. Got called a liar for my troubles. And for what? ?? How useful would that data be without a LOT of clarification?

I will, however, post my relative hardware comparisons of daily productivity. Derived from company billing records, dating back 10+ yrs. Fwiw. NO raw data, tho. And ANY relevance to anyone ELSE's use case is NOT claimed. Ayor. Fwiw.

100% (arbitrary reference) Bold 9900

150+% "clacky M" desktop

120% Toughbook CF30 (non-waterproof KB)

105% Bold 9650

85% Classic

65% K2LE

60% K2 & Q10 tied

55% D60

45% K1 & Z30 tied

30% Pearl

15% Kyocera 3035

Some of those vary greatly between WPM "burst" and daily productivity. For example Q10 can hold with about 95% of Bold 9900 for strictly WPM. It falls on its face for subsequent editing, tho. Try as I might, Bold's trackpad still reigns supreme for editing duties. Imo. Bluetooth mouse, and other contraptions, significantly assist Android handsets... All of the above comparisons were made "naked", no added hardware. Fwiw. Hardware to assist grasp of the giant K's do help.

Ok, wife's beaming "that look" at my left hand. Even tho I've maintained eye contact throughout dinner. AND consumed my meal well ahead of her... With un-distracted fork in right hand. Lol. At least she's not peering over a desktop PC! Lol.

I'll engage her to proof the post, since I have not. She seems to enjoy that. And she just might find an error! Bet she finds an error of some type! lol.

edit: she found an error! missed a line return for Toughbook... getting sloppy. lol.

Incomplete data until you include your Selectric typing stats

[idssteve]

Incomplete data until you include your Selectric typing stats

true... haven't touched a selectric for a couple decades+. lol. heck, about half dozen classmates, including myself, exceeded 85 wpm on old Underwood "finger powered" manuals! Back in highschool... lol. Of course adding "snail mail" time to get that content delivered probably made for minutes (hours?) per word gross rates. lol. those were five character words, btw.

edit: this LE's auto replace is getting annoying! Grrr....

[bb10adopter111]

There used to be a premium placed on typing speed because a lot of typing used to consist of transferring text from one place to another. Typing was an actual job, not just a skill.

These days, the problem for most people now isn't that they type too slowly. There is no value to typing faster than you can compose.

========== Composed and edited on the exceptional BlackBerry VKB on my trusty Z10. Any typographic errors, misspells, or grammatical errors are likely due to my inattention and lack of interest in word-perfect communications on an Internet tech fan forum.

[RWIndiana]

A thread well overdue! As one who's attempted such quantification myself, all I can say is good luck sorting it all out. Lol.

This Old Bold doesn't play very nice with that link but from what I can decipher thru Opera Mini's scrambled view, their numbers seem low, to me. Are they defining "words" as 5 characters? ?? Are they permitting errors? If so, how many? Or are errors subtracted from character count? Or from word count?? Or best yet, are corrections integrated into overall wpm??

As pointed out earlier, typing productivity is most usefully measured from inception to edited submittal. What good would a super fast wpm be if the typed product were an embarrassment to submit? ???

In addition to "super speed" character input, a usefully productive typing device must also:

1) Collaborate to minimize entry errors

2) Collaborate to proof & edit entry errors that do happen

3) Both 1 AND 2

3 is why this 8 year old Bold is what's generating this product this instant. Lol. That's not to say I wouldn't be faster with fewer errors and best editing experience at my "clacky M" equipped desktop. Problem is, that PC, and the desk it's on, isn't with me right now. They just won't fit any of MY pockets. Lol.

Even if it were in front of me this instant, it's not automatically pre-destined that the demands imposed by that platform on both hands, seating posture, etc, makes it my first choice for a given task & time. Especially for comfortably collaborating with MY creative process THIS time.

Sometimes I do a lot of typing while doing other things... Like relaxing & sipping coffee. Lol. Tying up both hands for typing might improve "word-per-minute" performance but actually impair overall "page-per-day" productivity. Especially if that typing must communicate creative concepts. Creativity frequently commands its own schedule. Regardless of desktop availability. Lol.

First obstacle to defining a usefully "universal" wpm quantification is relevance of WPM to a given use case. Are we talking "burst" or "sustained" ? Are testing texts originating straight from thought? Or parroted from a previously composed paper page? Or from a separate screen?? Or displayed on the same screen displaying the typed output??? Or displayed on the same input device being typed on itself???? My relatively tiny studies indicate that things change GREATly when some (most?) users are forced to shift eyes looking away from the input device while reading text to be typed.

Very different parts of brain & muscle-memory interface get implemented when typing a previously composed manuscript, eye to hand, as opposed to originating that composition, thought to hand. Very, VERY different use case AND wpm outcomes that I'm convinced varies with individual learning style. "Eye to hand" proves easiest to configure testing regimes around. "Thought to hand" proving most elusive of predictable quantification. Especially thru on-line testing schemes. Imo.

Possibly more relevant is overall productivity throughout a given day. Or month... Which proves pretty incompatible with 5 minute wpm "online surveys". Imo. Also, how do measuring apps compare across platforms? How should BBOS typing speed apps compare with iOS or Android?

Could go on & on. Since I'm SOooo enjoying typing this with Agent99.30, I must exercise restraint lest I fill Kevin's server... Lol. To publicly post my typing rates, which measure criteria should I post? ??? Regardless, I made that mistake ONCE. Got called a liar for my troubles. And for what? ?? How useful would that data be without a LOT of clarification?

I will, however, post my relative hardware comparisons of daily productivity. Derived from company billing records, dating back 10+ yrs. Fwiw. NO raw data, tho. And ANY relevance to anyone ELSE's use case is NOT claimed. Ayor. Fwiw.

100% (arbitrary reference) Bold 9900

150+% "clacky M" desktop

120% Toughbook CF30 (non-waterproof KB)

105% Bold 9650

85% Classic

65% K2LE

60% K2 & Q10 tied

55% D60

45% K1 & Z30 tied

30% Pearl

15% Kyocera 3035

Some of those vary greatly between WPM "burst" and daily productivity. For example Q10 can hold with about 95% of Bold 9900 for strictly WPM. It falls on its face for subsequent editing, tho. Try as I might, Bold's trackpad still reigns supreme for editing duties. Imo. Bluetooth mouse, and other contraptions, significantly assist Android handsets... All of the above comparisons were made "naked", no added hardware. Fwiw. Hardware to assist grasp of the giant K's do help.

Ok, wife's beaming "that look" at my left hand. Even tho I've maintained eye contact throughout dinner. AND consumed my meal well ahead of her... With un-distracted fork in right hand. Lol. At least she's not peering over a desktop PC! Lol.

I'll engage her to proof the post, since I have not. She seems to enjoy that. And she just might find an error! Bet she finds an error of some type! lol.

edit: she found an error! missed a line return for Toughbook... getting sloppy. lol.

This was quite entertaining. Thank you.

[idssteve]

There used to be a premium placed on typing speed because a lot of typing used to consist of transferring text from one place to another. Typing was an actual job, not just a skill.

These days, the problem for most people now isn't that they type too slowly. There is no value to typing faster than you can compose.

========== Composed and edited on the exceptional BlackBerry VKB on my trusty Z10. Any typographic errors, misspells, or grammatical errors are likely due to my inattention and lack of interest in word-perfect communications on an Internet tech fan forum.

Yep, the heyday of eye-to-hand data entry as a profession has been thankfully fading. Which illustrates limitations of common "eye-to-hand" speed tests...

The truly relevant measure for communications oriented typing is, in fact, "thought-to-delivery". To include composing, proofing, editing, polishing, etc. A nearly impossible enigma to attempt quantification of, tho. But supremely relevant to mobile communications as well as manuscript generation. Imo.

My company still does a lot of spreadsheet "eye-to-hand" data entry but that's far FAR from typical mobile use case, these days. If ever. ... For those most whose use case is almost exclusively "thought-to-hand" communications oriented, typing faster than ability to compose is pretty pointless. Likewise for manuscript generation.

Along those lines, I personally think and compose at least a sentence ahead of even my best typing rate. For me, to date, Bolds keep up best with both use cases. Different folks with different needs work & think differently.

I do, however, resent equipment that negatively distracts from the composing. Enough distraction and my composing will not only slow down to a point where type rate itself ceases to pose the bottleneck, but quality also suffers. Android seems pretty heavily laden with such distractions. Imo. Unwieldy handset form factors also prove pretty distracting, imo.

[bb10adopter111]

Yep, the heyday of eye-to-hand data entry as a profession has been thankfully fading. Which illustrates limitations of common "eye-to-hand" speed tests...

The truly relevant measure for communications oriented typing is, in fact, "thought-to-delivery". To include composing, proofing, editing, polishing, etc. A nearly impossible enigma to attempt quantification of, tho. But supremely relevant to mobile communications as well as manuscript generation. Imo.

My company still does a lot of spreadsheet "eye-to-hand" data entry but that's far FAR from typical mobile use case, these days. If ever. ... For those most whose use case is almost exclusively "thought-to-hand" communications oriented, typing faster than ability to compose is pretty pointless. Likewise for manuscript generation.

Along those lines, I personally think and compose at least a sentence ahead of even my best typing rate. For me, to date, Bolds keep up best with both use cases. Different folks with different needs work & think differently.

I do, however, resent equipment that negatively distracts from the composing. Enough distraction and my composing will not only slow down to a point where type rate itself ceases to pose the bottleneck, but quality also suffers. Android seems pretty heavily laden with such distractions. Imo. Unwieldy handset form factors also prove pretty distracting, imo.

I totally agree that distractions are death to quality writing. The Android interface for BlackBerry Hub is better than Gmail or Outlook, but that's a frighteningly low bar. When I have to write on my KEYone, I use a dedicated text editor and copy/paste into the appropriate app (not a very good solution).

BB10 is my favorite writing platform, with BBOS a close second.

[i_plod_an_dr_void]

Incomplete data until you include your Selectric typing stats

Wait a minute, what about the chisel and hammer, used on the original fold out tablets?

[TgeekB]

Wait a minute, what about the chisel and hammer, used on the original fold out tablets?

By far the best!

[Chuck Finley69]

Wait a minute, what about the chisel and hammer, used on the original fold out tablets?

LMAO

[idssteve]

Wait a minute, what about the chisel and hammer, used on the original fold out tablets?

Yep, the good old days! I remember well... lol. Back when we walked 50miles to school... uphill both ways! lol. When we couldn't lasso Pterodactyl to ride... hehe.

Chiseles ushered in the modern stone age!! An amazingly precise advancement over finger painting! So, so many these days STILL cling to finger painting on slabs! Some folks just never move on... hehe.

[chain13]

I totally agree that distractions are death to quality writing. The Android interface for BlackBerry Hub is better than Gmail or Outlook, but that's a frighteningly low bar.

True. I prefer to use Hub inbox because it has some text formatting right in the bottom while composing mail...

[i_plod_an_dr_void]

Yep, the good old days! I remember well... lol. Back when we walked 50miles to school... uphill both ways! lol. When we couldn't lasso Pterodactyl to ride... hehe.

Chiseles ushered in the modern stone age!! An amazingly precise advancement over finger painting! So, so many these days STILL cling to finger painting on slabs! Some folks just never move on... hehe.

Pretty much no trace of those finger paintings...those chiselled out on the other hand....

Now correct me if I'm wrong....I think those original tablets were running on something 10 something.

[DanielDallas]

ok now redo the challenge by set the keyboard to Dvorak!