I'm pretty happy - especially with the accuracy. But also the fact that I've gotten much better at catching and correcting the errors I do make. After all, who wants to have to go through documents after the fact and have lots of fixes?
Of course, speed is affected by many things and, when typing like I am now, I'll miss more errors. The typing tests usually mark the errors so even if I don't see the error as I type, I'll see some other color a word back or something telling me the error is there so I can fix it right then. Typing this post, I wouldn't see those errors.
It has given me yet another idea about a typing test design - typing stuff they show, but not letting you easily see any errors. Certainly not marking them in the document. Then when you are done, it scans for errors.
It would have to be an advanced spell check. For example, in some, if I were to have this:
"This is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party"
But I typed:
"This is the timefor all good men to come to the aid of their party"
Note I missed a space. In some programs, everything after that space would be "wrong". Some adjust to the next word any time you hit space, but in this case, hitting the space after "for" would simply tell the program to expect you to next spell "for", but you'd be typing "all" at that point.
Should be simple for programmers to have the app tell when you are obviously back on track no matter how you make it. In the above case, it should catch the missed space for one error, but that would be the only error.