Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Carpalx QGMLWB vs Carpalx QGMLWY, the Slant community recommends Carpalx QGMLWB for most people. In the question“What are the best keyboard layouts for programming?” Carpalx QGMLWB is ranked 10th while Carpalx QGMLWY is ranked 15th. The most important reason people chose Carpalx QGMLWB is:
If you already know QWERTY you don't have to relearn the punctuation, with the single exception of the `;:` key which is in QWERTY's `P` position, like Colemak.
Specs
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Punctuation is in the same location as QWERTY
If you already know QWERTY you don't have to relearn the punctuation, with the single exception of the ;: key which is in QWERTY's P position, like Colemak.
Pro ZXC don't move compared to QWERTY
Like Colemak, the common undo, cut and copy Ctrl-commands don't move from their QWERTY positions. The V (paste) key does though.
Pro Uses a colemak-like character layout
Uses the colemak character layout of moving P on a standard QWERTY keyboard layout one step down, extending the home row.
Pro Has low consecutive finger use
See the source here.
Pro Letter positions optimized
Via a quantitative effort model.
Pro Easier to learn than QGMLWB
Keeps the ZXCV key in the same place as the very common QWERTY keyboard layout. More familiar than even than QGMLWB.
Pro The layout is basically good for most Latin languages
As vowels and consonants are mostly divided between 2 hands and most words in Latin languages are made of 2-letter (consonant+vowel) syllables, the layout keeps it efficiency not only in English, for which it was primarily created, but in other languages too.
Pro It takes much less effort to type than classical layout
The layout effectively combines not only changing hands methods, and rolling fingers as well, that makes typing a real pleasure.
Pro About the same score on the carplax test as the QGMLWB variant
See the source here.
Cons
Con Effort model is speculative
The quantitative effort model central to the optimization is based on armchair speculation, rather than a scientific biomedical study. The chosen metrics and weighting for them are likely partially correct. But no-one is really sure how correct.
Con Doesn't take finger length into account
Unlike layouts such as norman and workman, QGMLWB doesn't take the length of fingers into account, for example on a standard QWERTY layout, it's easier to reach E than C.
Con Punctuation is not optimized
Programmers have to use punctuation a lot, but (except for the ;: key, like Colemak) punctuation hasn't been moved from their positions on QWERTY. In fact, the non-letter characters , . - " _ ' ) ( ; 0 1 = 2 : are used more than the least-frequent letter z in a reasonable English corpus. Not optimizing punctuation at all, especially for programmers, is nonsense.
Con V key has moved compared to QWERTY
The common paste shortcut used in for example windows has been moved to the right hand, making the layout harder to learn. This however is fixed in the QGMLWY variant of the carpalx series.
Con A very small user base and community
Con Doesn't favor the right hand
For right handed users, this keyboard layout doesn't use the usually stronger right hand more than the left, infact it sometimes favors the left hand more.
Con Very unpopular
Even rich on keyboard layouts variety Linux distros like Deepin, offering most of existing layouts, doesn't have this one. The situation on Android is not better, moreover if somebody get used to Swift-like keyboards, that do not have this layout, that person will be forced to have a second (e.g. qwerty) layout in mind.
Con Not always worth trying
The layout is great only if somebody uses it daily and a lot, like journalists, bloggers, writers do. In this case inconvenience to install the layout is worth use it. If you primarily use your phone/tablet to write some comments in Internet and other tiny writing tasks having such an unpopular layout on just your PC/laptop could be not justified.
