But (zooming out now) many users of Emacs use the mouse a lot and do not make any attempt to keep their hands on the keyboard: in a survey of Emacs users, 80% responded that they use graphical Emacs (Emacs not running in or communicating with a terminal), one of the main advantages of which is that the mouse behaves much like it does in a typical GUI app. I use graphical Emacs exclusively (the code I've written to extend Emacs does not even work right in terminal-based Emacs) and I make extensive use of the mouse, the menu bar and a pop-up menu on my right mouse button.
Are you surprised that 80% of Emacs users use graphical Emacs? That is probably because for some unknown reason, users (Emacs users and user in general) who like to always keep their hands on the keyboard are much more vocal than users who alternate frequently between keyboard and a pointing device. One consequence of this is that although VSCode has the majority of the usage share according to all the surveys, there are many more HN comments extolling the benefits of Vim or Emacs than there are pro-VSCode comments.
I explained why $50 million spent measuring how long it takes to do a task isn't measuring the right thing, and therefore doesn't support the claim that users are wrong. You're telling me your opinion, which of course you're entitled to have, but that doesn't fix the flawed claims of the research.
> Are you surprised that 80% of Emacs users use graphical Emacs?
No.
> users who like to always keep their hands on the keyboard are much more vocal than users who alternate frequently between keyboard and a pointing device
This has no relevance to my comment, which is that the research didn't measure what it needed to measure, and therefore one should not conclude that users have been proven wrong.
> People new to the mouse find the process of acquiring it every time they want to do anything other than type to be incredibly time-wasting. And therein lies the very advantage of the mouse: it is boring to find it because the two-second search does not require high-level cognitive engagement.
> It takes two seconds to decide upon which special-function key to press. Deciding among abstract symbols is a high-level cognitive function. Not only is this decision not boring, the user actually experiences amnesia! Real amnesia! The time-slice spent making the decision simply ceases to exist.
> While the keyboard users in this case feels as though they have gained two seconds over the mouse users, the opposite is really the case.
We can all agree that using the mouse is not faster than the keyboard if you have a bug like that. 100% of users would say that using the keyboard is faster. Yet their methodology would lead to exactly the same conclusion that users are wrong and $50 million of research has shown it's faster to use the mouse. Assuming "all else equal" when it's not can lead to really bad decisions.
What do you think the sentence “acquiring it every time they want to do anything” means? Buying it from the store??
I've heard this before. An obvious problem with the claim is that a stopwatch doesn't measure distraction. It might take longer to use the keyboard for a task, but using the mouse introduces a number of other things like moving off the keyboard, grabbing the mouse, figuring out where the cursor is, etc.
It's kind of like a colleague asking a "30 second question". It's only 30 seconds if you don't count the cost of the distraction.