Is Touch Typing Necessary? Fast Typists Using 1–2 Fingers per Hand, and Who Benefits

Three points.

• 1. It is not required

  Some self-taught typists with no course exceeded 70 WPM using one or two fingers per hand (Feit et al., 2016, 30 people). Average speed also did not differ between course-takers and self-taught typists.

• 2. “Unnecessary” is too strong

  In a large online study, typists who had taken a course were slightly faster on average (54.4 versus 49.0 WPM), and those who reported using more fingers tended to be faster (Dhakal et al., 2018, 168,960 people). In Feit et al., self-taught typists spent more time looking at the keyboard.

• 3. In my view, what decides it is how much you type, and how often you type while watching a screen

  The table of conditions below sorts this out by situation.

Both studies had people type English or similar text. Neither examined Japanese romaji input.

In Japanese, ブラインドタッチ (buraindo tacchi, “blind touch”) means typing without looking at the keyboard. Looked up on Kotobank, the dictionary Seisenban Nihon Kokugo Daijiten explains it as “typing without looking at the keyboard; touch typing,” and the Kodansha “IT yōgo ga wakaru jiten” explains it as “touch typing; a Japanese-made English-style term (blind + touch).” Research papers call it touch typing.

Search suggestions sometimes show words like “discriminatory” and “rephrase.” In what I checked to write this, I found no statement in dictionaries or public guidance treating the term that way. I make no judgement; I only note that “touch typing” (タッチタイピング) can replace it and means the same.

In Japanese, this article uses the more commonly searched ブラインドタッチ in headings and also uses タッチタイピング when describing the research. This English version uses “touch typing.”

Feit et al. studied 30 people who type in daily life, aged 20–55 (mean 31). Their speeds across the whole group ranged from 34 to 79 WPM; they were chosen to span a wide range of speeds. Thirteen said they had learned touch typing, for example in a course; 17 had never taken a course and were self-taught. They copied text from a screen; finger movements were recorded with motion capture, and gaze with eye-tracking glasses.

• Similar speed

  Averages were 57.8 WPM for the trained group and 58.9 WPM for the untrained group, with no statistical difference. The share of errors left uncorrected was 0.76% versus 0.47%, also not significantly different.

• Some people using 1–2 fingers per hand exceeded 70 WPM

  Some of those typing with only one or two fingers per hand exceeded 70 WPM. The number of fingers used averaged 8.5 for the trained group and 6.2 for the untrained group. However, no one in the middle-finger-centred groups exceeded 55 WPM (the paper says the sample is small and it is unclear whether that style is disadvantageous). Index-finger-centred typists were few: two for the right hand and six for the left.

• Self-taught typists looked at the keyboard more

  The share of time spent looking at the keyboard was 0.41 for the untrained group and 0.20 for the trained group. Gaze shifts between screen and keyboard were also more frequent in the untrained group (1.2 versus 0.92 per sentence). The authors write that self-taught techniques may be worse in work that needs attention on the display.

• What fast typists shared was not the number of fingers

  Three things were linked to speed: pressing the same letter with the same finger every time, moving the next finger early, and not moving the whole hand much. This is an analysis within 30 people, not an experiment showing that training these makes you faster.

There are limits. The sample is small (30) and was chosen to span a wide range of speeds, the task was copying text from a screen, and the languages were English and Finnish. Whether the same holds for Japanese romaji input, or for typing while composing, is unknown.

Dhakal et al. collected 168,960 people and about 137 million keystrokes through an online typing test, copying 15 English sentences.

• Overall distribution

  The average was 51.6 WPM (standard deviation 20.2). The bottom 10% typed below about 26 WPM, the top 10% above about 78 WPM, and the fastest reached 120 WPM or more.

• Course-takers were slightly faster on average

  Those with course experience averaged 54.4 WPM and those without 49.0 WPM. The gap is about 5 WPM, small against the spread between individuals (standard deviation about 20 WPM). Uncorrected errors were 1.02% versus 1.23%, a very small difference.

• More fingers went with higher speed

  People who reported using more fingers tended to be faster (correlation 0.38; the relation is not linear). 47.6% said they used 9–10 fingers. This is a correlation; it does not mean that using more fingers makes you faster.

The paper states its own limits. Participants joined on their own from the site of a company that offers typing courses; they were young (mean age 24.5), 68% were from the US, and 72% had taken a course. The authors also say that differences in who took part may explain why the result differs from Feit et al., where 43% had taken a course.

• “No course, so slow” is not supported

  In both studies, some people with no course were fast.

• On average, course-takers were slightly faster

  The gap is about 5 WPM. But that does not show the course caused it. There may be other reasons, such as people who already practice a lot taking courses.

• The difference in looking at the keyboard comes from a small study

  Only Feit et al.’s 30 people were studied for gaze. Dhakal et al. did not study gaze.

• Japanese was not studied

  Both used English or similar text. Whether the same holds for typing Japanese in romaji and converting is unknown.

Instead of a yes-or-no answer, here are the situations. The “reason” column gives only research figures or things that follow from arithmetic.

“Value of learning” is my judgement. The research showed two things — a small gap in averages, and a difference in time spent looking at the keyboard — and does not say “therefore you should learn.” To estimate typing time from your workload, see How fast do you need to type for work?; for tiredness and pain, see When Typing Tires or Hurts Your Wrists and Arms.

I cannot promise how long it takes. In research, beginners needed on average roughly 35–50 hours to learn the whole keyboard (Baddeley and Longman 1978: 72 postal workers training on a typewriter keyboard with alphanumeric codes; the four group averages ranged from 34.9 to 49.7 hours). Feit et al. also cite the literature saying that reaching the speeds reported for touch typists takes hundreds of hours of training.

• Check finger positions on a diagram

  Which finger takes which key is shown in the Home Row Position Diagram.

• Set a routine and widen what you type without looking

  How to learn touch typing sets out a first-week plan.

• When it is not working

  Why You Can't Touch-Type and How to Fix It separates the causes.

• If you already type your own way

  How to decide whether to change is in should adults fix self-taught typing?.

• Q. I type with only my index fingers. Is that a problem at work?

  In research, some people using only 1–2 fingers per hand exceeded 70 WPM. I think whether it is a problem depends on how much you type and how often you type while watching a screen. To estimate the time, see How fast do you need to type for work?.

• Q. Does touch typing make you less tired?

  I have not confirmed any study on touch typing and fatigue or pain, so I cannot say. If pain, numbness or swelling persists, consult a medical professional. A guide is in When Typing Tires or Hurts Your Wrists and Arms.

• Q. Is everyone who took a course fast?

  No. In Feit et al., the group that had learned touch typing averaged 57.8 WPM and the group that had not averaged 58.9 WPM, with no significant difference (p = 0.38). The paper notes that many touch typists are inefficient and many self-taught typists are efficient. In Dhakal et al. the gap was about 5 WPM.

• Q. Is it too late to learn as an adult?

  I found no study measuring the effect by age, so I cannot say for sure. How to think about it is in should adults fix self-taught typing?.

Touch typing is not required, and “unnecessary” is too strong. The research supports three things: self-taught typists can be fast, course-takers were slightly faster on average, and self-taught typists spent more time looking at the keyboard.

If you type a lot, or often cannot look away from the screen, there is a reason to learn. If nothing bothers you, your current way is enough. If you learn, start with finger positions.

I checked the research figures and the dictionary wording against the full texts below on 18 October 2026. The Kotobank page is in Japanese.

1. Feit AM, Weir D, Oulasvirta A. (2016) How We Type: Movement Strategies and Performance in Everyday Typing. CHI ’16. — 30 people, 34–79 WPM. Speed, number of fingers, and gaze: Results; the three factors linked to speed: Discussion
2. Dhakal V, Feit AM, Kristensson PO, Oulasvirta A. (2018) Observations on Typing from 136 Million Keystrokes. CHI ’18. — 168,960 people. Speed and course experience: Table 3; number of fingers: “Typing speed versus number of fingers”; limits: Limitations
3. Baddeley AD, Longman DJA. (1978) The influence of length and frequency of training session on the rate of learning to type. Ergonomics 21(8), 627–635. — 72 postal workers; hours to learn the whole keyboard: Table 1
4. Kotobank, entry “ブラインドタッチ” (Seisenban Nihon Kokugo Daijiten; IT yōgo ga wakaru jiten)
5. Typing Musou details are as of 18 October 2026