I think if you need to measure this kind of thing, you're missing the point in the first place. I don't want to be chasing some absolute productivity metric, I want a setup that doesn't break my flow. For many people, reaching for the mouse breaks their flow and feels wrong, which is oftentimes worse than being a second slower, because it takes you out of the mental frame you were in.

For me, using my mouse while I'm working feels natural, so trying to change my workflow to learn how to navigate everything by keyboard would be a huge amount of extra effort just to maybe possibly save a little bit of time in some situations.

▲

bluGill 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Reaching for the mouse doesn't break my flow. It makes the thing I was doing invisible in the flow. Keyboard shortcuts require me to think, which makes it FEEL like I'm doing something, and that something is in the flow so it feels like I'm productive. However the mouse doesn't even enter into the flow at all, I just do the thing and get on with the real work without breaking flow.

Again, there is no universal correct answer. Sometimes the keyboard really is better. However sometimes the mouse really is better and because I'm proficient in it I don't break my flow to use it.

	▲	an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

miyoji 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think this is unhealthy self-handicapping. Your "flow" is just habits, things you've taught yourself to do. You weren't born with the ability to use either a keyboard or a mouse, there is no "natural" or "intuitive" way to operate a computer. It's all 100% learned behaviors that can be altered.

▲

qsera 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>Your "flow" is just habits, things you've taught yourself to do

By this logic a person who were comfortable with mouse should never grow to like VIM.

> there is no "natural" or "intuitive" way to operate a computer.

Fundamentally a computer is something that execute instructions. It is pretty poor interface to pick instructions from 100 options using a mouse as opposed to type it using a keyboard. A mouse hides the power of the computer behind a set of fixed clickable options. That is a pretty poor interface.

	▲	miyoji 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> By this logic a person who were comfortable with mouse should never grow to like VIM. Quite the opposite, my argument is that habits are changeable. > Fundamentally a computer is something that execute instructions. It is pretty poor interface to pick instructions from 100 options using a mouse as opposed to type it using a keyboard. A mouse hides the power of the computer behind a set of fixed clickable options. That is a pretty poor interface. You continue to argue for my point. OP was claiming that measured efficiency does not matter because it's about "flow". I argue that one can teach oneself to flow differently, the commands can be learned.

▲

paytonjjones 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> there is "natural" or "intuitive"

Your argument is sound but this overstates your case a bit. There's a reason we don't type with our toes.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

ablob 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most knowledge about human computer interfaces was obtained through metrics. Groupings, menu bars, corner buttons, context menu orderings, and other things didn't just spawn into existence. There was a time where human pattern recognition and physiology was an active consideration for user interfaces. One of the reasons mouse input became popular is precisely because interfaces were created to be easy to use with it.

All of this brings me to my questions: Why do you reject measuring how good an interface is? Or given your dismay over keyboard based workflows, why do you think they would win most of the time?

I'd wager that if actually tested, in only a few scenarios the keyboard would win, while hybrids (with both mouse and keyboard input) perform best for most people.