A few things to note here. It is comparing deuteranomaly to protanopia. The first is anomalous trichromacy, the latter dichromacy - meaning the first type has all three cone types but one is malfunctioning, the latter is completely missing a (different) cone type. So this is not really a good comparison.
Second, as far as I know, no good anomalous trichromacy simulations exist. They all work by (usually linearly) interpolating between normal vision and dichromacy, but this is not supported by empirical evidence.
Third, this does not seem to take into account the lightness differences caused by missing cones.
Finally, while there are multiple types of “total colourblindness”, most if not all suffer from severe acuity problems as well, and usually many other vision problems. The final picture is very unrealistic.
Source: several years of an amateur’s interest in the topic.
It still visually conveys the fact that there are different types of colorblindness and a rough approximation of the differences in a way that is understandable to the general population even if it isn’t 100% accurate.
The deuteranopia has to be at least somewhat accurate because it looks exactly the same as the “normal” picture to me. I know that the nature of malformations in the cones means that other people with deuteranopia will see it slightly differently too, but for me this seems spot on.
I also have deuteranopia and the top two look similar but I can clearly see the orange, red, pink on the right. I’ve never understood these diagrams and think they’re nonsense.
I’ve always been a little confused about it too because I seem to have trouble with reds, but every time I take a color blindness test they just tell me I’m weak on greens. It’s weird.
A few things to note here. It is comparing deuteranomaly to protanopia. The first is anomalous trichromacy, the latter dichromacy - meaning the first type has all three cone types but one is malfunctioning, the latter is completely missing a (different) cone type. So this is not really a good comparison.
Second, as far as I know, no good anomalous trichromacy simulations exist. They all work by (usually linearly) interpolating between normal vision and dichromacy, but this is not supported by empirical evidence.
Third, this does not seem to take into account the lightness differences caused by missing cones.
Finally, while there are multiple types of “total colourblindness”, most if not all suffer from severe acuity problems as well, and usually many other vision problems. The final picture is very unrealistic.
Source: several years of an amateur’s interest in the topic.
It still visually conveys the fact that there are different types of colorblindness and a rough approximation of the differences in a way that is understandable to the general population even if it isn’t 100% accurate.
It is high level, like “mammals don’t lay eggs”.
I agree - I wish it were more accurate, but anything raising awareness is nice.
The deuteranopia has to be at least somewhat accurate because it looks exactly the same as the “normal” picture to me. I know that the nature of malformations in the cones means that other people with deuteranopia will see it slightly differently too, but for me this seems spot on.
I also have deuteranopia and the top two look similar but I can clearly see the orange, red, pink on the right. I’ve never understood these diagrams and think they’re nonsense.
I’ve always been a little confused about it too because I seem to have trouble with reds, but every time I take a color blindness test they just tell me I’m weak on greens. It’s weird.