Talk:Color perception test

The number plate the test shows should be hidden so you have to click on it to view what number it is. It's kind of silly that the "answer" is right there under the test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.44.116 (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This test, aside from its scientific value, has long been applied to institute kinds of social discriminations in Japan, and probably in other countries as well, throughout the 20th century. Particularly before 1950s, those who failed to pass this tests were excluded from engineering schools, military services, and other professions considered needing the ability to differentiate colors. It was a celebrated story that one of the kins of the fiancee of the late Emperor was found to be colorblind, as the test was first applied to the students of the royal school. In spite of the rampant objections within the royal household raised against the marriage, since the colorblindness became known to be hereditary, the Emperor persisted to fulfill the engagement. He was long praised for the decision, and the episode contributed greatly to remove the baseless discrimination caused by the wrong way of application of the test.

Does anyone else find the image here extremely confusing within the context of the article? I imagine it's supposed to in some way represent the 'hidden' figure in a test panel (useful for those who cannot see it), but as it is here it's not explained and just seems generally cryptic. Would a person who has not seen or taken the actual test be able to understand what this image is attempting to show? Somehow I doubt it. - Rankler 14:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The image and explanation are confusing. I'm also made more skeptical by the source description - self made on photoshop. Also, I know that I am red-green colour blind yet I still see exactly the same image as a friend (who isn't) described when he saw it. If the poster cannot justify the scientific validity of the test I propose it be removed. Perhaps we could email a site dedicated to CB and ask to use an image... Thick as a Planck 8:22, 14 November, 2005 (UTC)

The image would appear to be useles at proving the usefulness of the test, and worse seems to propagate the common miconception that red-green blindness sufferers are completely unable to distinguish between the two. Taken from the Wikipedia page Color blindness - "Color blindness is not the swapping of colors in the observer's eyes. Grass is never red, stop signs never green. Distinguishing a Granny Smith from a Braeburn is not a problem. The color impaired do not learn to call red "green" and vice versa.".

Based on this, I suggest that the image is removed and replaced with a more suitable replacement. --134.220.85.139 11:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

As many have noted this picture is faulty, so I took it out. 11:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Example images

Are these any use?

It should be possible to see the digit "2" in both images if you're not colourblind. I need someone to check this for me though, because I can't see anything in the one on the left. -- Sakurambo 14:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep the "2" is visible in both images. It's a little tricky to see in the left one but it's definitely there. -- Laura S | talk to me 20:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Laura, thanks for the feedback. I've uploaded another version of the colour image with a bit less "noise". Is it clearer now? You might need to do a hard refresh (control-F5?) to see the new version. And by the way, would you say the "2" in the colour image is subjectively lighter or darker than the background? I was wondering if the grey version should perhaps be the other way round... -- Sakurambo 21:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think it's harder to see now. I can try to work on it to give it a little more contrast, but probably won't have time to do it for a few days. -- Laura S | talk to me 00:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's version 3. Any better? -- Sakurambo 10:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Increadbly clear to me, with this version.--Clawed 10:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm on a laptop now so different screen, but this one does seem a lot clearer. -- Laura S | talk to me 12:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your feedback. I've just updated the article. -- Sakurambo 09:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to put both images on the front page instead of just providing a link to the second image. When the two images are on the same page, the readers will be able to compare them more easily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.84.191.122 (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Some of the external links on the page Color blindness provide free software that can be used to adjust images to simulate how the images would appear to people with different color deficencies. I'm just starting to look into this software, but the Vischeck program seems interesting. Straha 206th 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am red-green color blind, and I see the "2" in both images. For the image in the article, I see "21." Might it be possible to illustrate what I would see versus what a person with healthy eyes would see? I'm not sure how to do that, really. I've always wondered where the 74 shows up, for example. -- Tckma 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

good color vision

I have 'good' color vision, and the two '2's are quite clear against the distraction backgrounds. On the left, the green dots composing the serif numeral 2 are of several similar intensities to the peach & pink mixture of distraction dots. On the right, the darker blue-gray 2 is of uniform intensity and color, and the background/distraction dots are much lighter, but also of uniform intensity and color. I am trying to embed the right image, stripped of all but the dots composing the 2. I used paint to strip all the lighter dots, and as much of the black matrix as convenient, so even an absolute color blind person will recognize the 2. The corresponding dots in all images are in identical positions, so anyone should be able to pick out the 2 in all three images, and perhaps identify more subtle visible characteristics, especially if you have an ordinary diminished rather than completely missing color ability.

• E:\- Print links\2.JPG

  Caption1

this tool seems to require me to put the file somewhere on-line. I will try later.
Wikidity (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Constructing the designs

How are the "patterns and colours of dots" selected so that they present the various different numerical/non-patterns? (For these or "any other similar designs.") Jackiespeel (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

difficulty finding the pattern

i can see in full color but i seem to have some difficulty finding the number in test 19. 67.191.66.122 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I think it's supposed to be the number 2, but perhaps this one is a poor example? 161.165.196.84 (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Ishihara Plate No. 11" appears to contain the number 6. Muranesenema (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Plate 19 is a reverse test, the color is off so its visible on the graphic but I can't see it on the 1980 edition in my hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.100.213 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Plate 19 contains a wiggly line that is not visible to people with normal vision. People with red-green colour blindness should be able to see a line however. I think some kind of caption should be included with that plate, since it is a reverse test. Spock35 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming of Ishihara plates in Gallery

Shouldn't the plates be named by the order they were originally in, rather than the number they show? Nonagonal Spider (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, at the very least they should not misrepresent the plate numbers. If we want to call them "you should see #" then that numbering is fine. But having them mislabeled doesn't work for wiki. So I changed them to match my book. (and their file names incidentally) Also thinking there should be notice that it is normal to not see the numbers plates 18-21. So people don't get confused.205.206.100.213 (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)