Talk:Color blindness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Medical genetics This article is supported by the WikiProject on Medical genetics, which gives a central approach to Medical genetics and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Color blindness, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.
Good articles Color blindness has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is supported by the Color WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Color-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

In WP Medical genetics
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Color blindness as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Dutch or Portuguese language Wikipedias.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Rainbow Errors?

On the tritanopia vision rainbow flag, there is blue, but that is the disorder with the absence of blue photoreceptors right? Can someone help me out on this? Also in the RGB article there is a neat picture series with a barn, I'd like to see something like that viewed through the eyes of different color blindnesses.

[edit] British or American spelling

The following is the last post of Archives 2 :"I just changed most of the "color" to the correct spelling of "colour". i dont know what kind of ignoramus would think it is spelled "color" because that is what the americans think and we all know how thick they are, don't we?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Cat (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)."

Since this was archived and not commented on, I'm bringing it back for discussion. As per the section on varieties of English in the Manual of Style, articles should 1) use the same dialogue throughout, and 2) follow the dialect of the first contributor (if there is no strong tie to one nation and other words cannot be used). As color/colour blindness doesn't have a strong tie to any one specific nation and has the word color/colour in it, the spelling should follow the dialect of the first major contributor, which was American English.

This has obviously been a problem - looking through the edit history I saw that the spelling has been changed to British English at least 3 different times, and then changed back. Since there have been no non-vandalism edits since the last change to British English, I'm reverting it. Natalie 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Other color deficiencies?

The article as is only addresses the classic definitions of color deficiencies. There's nothing wrong with that, but should it also include other color deficiencies or should they be in a separate or alternate article? Specifically, I'm thinking of the common age-related color deficiency do to the yellowing of the lens, and also the forms of low-light color deficiency (which I'm not very familiar with). --Ronz 20:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm trying to research the colorblindness that I suffer from, but I can't seem to find it. To my knowledge, I can see every color, but similar colors are very difficult for me to distinguish when next to one another, and certain colors, when I view them on their own (brown, red, green, grey and some shades of blue, for example), I can't tell what color it is at all. Does anyone know what kind of colorblindness this is? --Steam Giant 12:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heredity

The article says, in regards to being a

Genetic red-green color blindness affects men much more often than women, because the genes for the red and green color receptors are located on the X chromosome, of which men have only one and women have two. Such a trait is called sex-linked. .... In turn, a carrier woman passes on a mutated X chromosome region to only half her male offspring.

This is going to sound like hair-splitting but is this sort of... inaccurate? It is possible for a carrier woman to have no colour-blind male offspring or even 100% of male offspring colour-blind. It's just that statistically she will have a 50% probability of having a colour-blind son, because it's the chance of which X chromosome will be present in the zygote at conception. That means if she only has one son, it's 50-50 if he's colourblind, so the result would be either 0% or 100% colour blindness in male offspring... you get my point. I'm pretty sure this is right, but I could be wrong. If not, could someone change it so maybe kids learning about heredity don't get confused? - spider84 (password problems, can't log in) 220.237.244.200 09:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Sample Images

Those images tend to be more visible on a monitor set to a lower level of brightness than on one set to a higher level of brightness. I find this quite misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.41.35 (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

They're useless on an LCD, so I've removed them from the article. boffy_b 08:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Should we remove images that are fine for readers with better quality monitors? They still give all readers an idea of what the tests are like no matter the monitor quality. --Ronz 17:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they are only useless when the LCD isn't used in its native resolution, but it can be told to the users. I think they could be kept. Thomas Bertels 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly colour-blind (and it IS COLOUR, as my goddamn english teacher keeps telling me), and i think these images are only accurate for people wha suffer from strong-colour blindness. and how do people get these images, as you cannot see out of another person's eyes? i do not see how you would tell that green looks very blue to some people. -Grim- 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from article for discussion

Conversely, the board game Cosmic Encounter was designed and tested with colorblind individuals, and two of the player colors, a dark blue and a light blue, are difficult to distinguish by normally-sighted individuals.[citation needed]

I don't find the above notable. Isn't such testing commonplace? More importantly, hasn't this been a recommendation from design and human factors groups for many, many decades now? --Ronz 22:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question for an expert

It is possible to possess both a protanomaly and a deuteranomly?Fistful of Questions 02:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

Dalton was NOT the first scientist to publish a paper on color-blindness. Specifically, there is a paper from the 1600s in the Transactions of the Royal Society (in the 1650s or 1660s. I think). I'll try to find it again and change the article. David Manthey 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Class

Looking over this article, it appears to have everything that is required of a GA article and more. Da54 23:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please test it

i am optician and i have invent a new test for coulor blindness , you can see the link here:** Test of colour blindness with the indication of the weaknesses in various colours, quantifies green red blue somebody say it is a spam and destroy my link , i think it is not correct what do you think of this test? and the method to destroy before testing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjean3 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for your soliciting beta testers for your website. --Ronz 22:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Your test is so full of typos and mis-translated concepts as to render it useless. 166.84.1.3 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your test is much better than ishihara test. --User:85.49.104.217 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I did this test last night. I believe the wordings can be better translated. Nonetheless, I found problems with this test. I think I have no problems with colors, nor does my wife. But we both had trouble with question 2) and 4). With 2), we don't see two blue boxes, we see two cyan boxes. Perhaps this was a translation problem? With 4) we see 3 pink boxes and 2 skin-colored boxes. The names of colors are used inconsistently between tests. After evaluation, the test does not explain why choices are wrong. This website is not up to wikipedia standard. Sorry. Fred Hsu 17:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I respond to Fredhshu and Ronz ( who distroy always my link !). Sorry for my translation, the english is not my native language, but the problem is not to mistake blue and cyan or green with 2) and in 4) i cannot say skin-colored it is white, pink, yellow or black ? if you are really colour-blind, it is not 2 mistakes but often 7 mistakes and all in the same direction.I encourage the colour-blind to squeeze out theirs opinions. I want to recall that the Ishihara test is not 100% guaranted. I think it is anormal that Ronz distroy again my link !--Jjean3 23:31, 19 February 2007 .
Again, this is not a place to test your website. I'm sorry you don't understand. --Ronz 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
As much as I disagree with Ronz in terms of external links (see the 'external links' section below), I have to agree with him that your page was a bit confusing. I tried it last night, honestly. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. This is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal. If your test is based on published research, and it is clear and easily to understand, and bug-free, then I believe it will be extremely useful. On second though, if your work is based on real published research, why don't you create a new article for it. This is where Ronz and I differ ;) I believe not-so-good wordings and links can be turned into useful articles, if people put time and effort into it. And the topic of color blindness certainly can use more sub-articles on various aspects of it (including testing procedures). Fred Hsu 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this test would be useful if you would provide a definitions of your colors. To me, violet is a light purple color. To you, it seems to encompass both light and dark purple. What is "light green" and "vivid green". I am sure these color names come from the standard palette, but most people are not familiar with them. I think your test will be improved if people know what to call the colors. It can be difficult to sort through the options. I am not color blind, but I got 3 wrong! --72.94.167.162 14:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I did the test, and it says I have protanopia, but I have just as much trouble with yellow/green and blue/numerous colors as I do with red and other colors. --Steam Giant 14:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] external links

I believe there has recently been an overzealous removal of external links. I have been reading this article and related ones on color perception in the past few weeks. I find these articles lacking real, hard information. In particular, I can't seem to find pointers and references to books accessible to the general public. Actual research papers are very hard to read for the layman.

In the process, I looked at many external links. Some are not very useful, and many of them are. I finally found a free software similar to what I was going to write. It changes the entire screen on a computer to make colors distinguishable for color blind people. The external page also includes detailed information on how it enhances images via saturation, filtering, color transaction and hatching. I added the link to this article and it was promptly removed among half dozen others.

I am going to add it back. If you plan to remove it, please look at the external page first to make sure you understand what you are doing. I don't immediately see how WP:NOT prohibits inclusion of this link. Removal of this link does a color blind person a disservice.

Unlike the unremoved link to www.vischeck.com, this external page is free of advertisement and the software is free. I installed it last night and it worked really well. Fred Hsu 16:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The link was: Visolve, free software that transforms colors, enhances saturation and redraws colors with hatches for color blind people. It comes with a standalone program to capture/transform images on screen and a toolbar in Windows taskbar to transform the whole screen.
WP:NOT#REPOSITORY: "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Mere collections of external links." The problem is that the External links section is becoming a link farm of tools related to color blindness. The External links section should be supplemental information that supports the article topic WP:External_links#What_should_be_linked. Instead we have sections of external links on testing for color blindness, simulating color blindness, designing for color blindness, and tools to help people with color blindness. --Ronz 16:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
(If you don't mind, I'm going to change the title of this section to make it more civil.) --Ronz 16:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed the title of this section. Can you please post your thoughts to talk page, before you re-remove links in the future? I plan to enhance this article after I am done acquiring and reading books on this topic. Perhaps I'll have more intelligent things to say about this topic after I write the program I siad I would write. Until then, some of these external links are extremely useful and are logical extensions for readers of the current article. If I found it very useful during my research, I think other reader will as well. Even after the rewrite, I think many of these external links are still useful. And, can you please answer my questions on www.vischeck.com? Why was the free software removed and this commercial page left? I am not advocating for removal of vischeck; I found it useful as well. But I don't understand the logic behind your removal. Thanks. Fred Hsu 17:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried to make the change and discussions at the same time. Sorry about not answering all your questions. I went through the links quickly and they certainly could be trimmed further. My basic perspective on this is that this is an encyclopedia, not a place to find tools and tests. --Ronz 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ with your approach. If we simply remove all unrefernced material and all external links from wikipedia, it will be extremely hard for people to gradually build up good articles over time. Instead, we leave stub templates, fact-check templates and notes in talk pages, with the hope that someone will come along and fix these problems. Please see [edit diff of Mitochondrial Eve] for an example. This article was full of incorrect statements and unreferenced statements. People could have simply removed all such problems, leaving the article with maybe two paragraphs. But instead, stubs and fact-checks were added and discussions started on the talk page. Eventually, someone thought it was time and rewrote the article.
You quickly went through links and removed those "you" deemed inappropriate. In the process, you probably removed some weeds and you also threw away jewels. Some good pointers useful for later editors are now gone. The external link section in wikipedia articles are really not part of the article. They are supposed to be pointers to readers who are not satisfied with the current state of the article. In time, they will become part of the wikipedia, with help from other editors.
As for tools, we live in the information age. Wikipedia is so much better than Britannica in part because it has interwiki links and external links to pages outside of wiki. After reading wiki article on Color Blindness, many reader would want to either try the dichromat experience or find software to help them cope with this condition. If they can't start their search here, where do they do that? Based on 'your' basic perspective, all links in external links section should be purged, because they are all links to tests and tools. Can you please explain 'how' you decided what to purge and what not to purge?
I am restoring the particular link I mentioned here. Please do not remove it unless you come up with better excuses. Thanks. Fred Hsu 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Please be more civil in your discussion here and your edit summaries.
I'll remove items as I see fit, referring to the relevant guidelines when I do so.
It's the editor adding the material that is responsible for supporting it's use in the article. --Ronz 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
After my research, I may be able to write new articles on color blindness testing, simulation and tools which help color blindness people into separate articles. Then add sections in the Color Blindness article which point to these new articles. Until then, I believe these links should be kept in the external links section to help people expand this topic. Instead of simply removing all of them, you can also add cleanup templates or something to that effect. Or, create stub articles for these sub-topics and move links there. If you are simply reducing the number of links to some manageable set, I believe you need to be more careful with your selection of links (see my thought on Visolve vs Daltonize (vischeck). You can't just cite generic WP:NOT and WP:EL as reason for removal of this link, while not applying the same principles to all other external links. Fred Hsu 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I went through all the links and removed the ones I thought were extraneous and in violation of NOT and EL. I didn't remove them all for the very reasons you give. I reluctantly left vischeck in because it has online versions available. I tried to find a better link to the online versions, but couldn't fine one that I thought would work well on its own. --Ronz 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with both Ronz and Fredhsu: The list of softare links is inappropriate for this article, however, they are not inappropriate for Wikipedia. Take a look at genealogy software and genealogy. Rather than make a link-list at the end of the genealogy article, the software products were turned into an article of their own right. I think the same should be done here. Create an article that discusses software solutions that have been developed to deal with or work around colorblindness. Include links in that article, and possibly create articles for some of the specific software products themselves if they are notable. I think an article on software solutions for colorblindness could have more potential than the geneology one, too, if it includes things such as discussions of the algorithms used and the techniques applied in the software. -- – Zawersh 12:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think genealogy software would stand up to an AfD from my experience. Still, I think it's worth pursuing the suggestion to create a new article on software solutions. --Ronz 16:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monochromacy

In one section, certain symptoms (e.g. nystagmus) are associated with rod monochromacy, and in another they're associated with cone monochromacy. I haven't a clue which is correct, but someone should fix this. /blahedo (t) 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disability

I think more should be disussed on the nature of the disability. Why not as apparent as other issues Color blindness can preclude an individual from many careers. I myself realized this when I joined the military and despite the plethora of jobs, i was availed just two. Color blindness can effect education aswell.--66.30.196.201 05:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Traffic lights

The article mentions that red/green colour blindness makes it difficult to distinguish traffic lights by colour; in the UK - and presumably throughout Europe the green light has added blue so it looks quite different from the red even if, like me, one is red/green colour blind. If anyone has a reference to confirm this (ISTR hearing it on the radio once) then shouldn't this be in the article?

Apepper 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment?

There was a treatment for red/green colour blindness introduced a few years ago using a single coloured contact lens - should this be described; not by me I know nothing about it! Apepper 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Dyschromatopsia

"Dyschromatopsia is a symptom associated with the eye. Strictly refers to a disorder/change in colour vision." This was requested to become an article, however I believe it would be more suited if that sentence above was placed somewhere within this article. I wanted to place it somewhere, but I felt I leave it to someone with better judgement as this is a "Good Article". Then I will make a redirect for Dyschromatopsia into this article. Sounds good?(SORRY forgot to sign) petze 12:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Oh and PS, here is a refference for it: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/dyschromatopsia petze 12:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/l/Talk%7EColor_blindness_637d.html"