I shall buck the trend on this one. Online tests in general may have their problems, but this situation is quite straightforward. Those circles have numbers. Most of us here can see them. If you can't, it's pretty clear that there's something wrong in your case. Color blindness is one of the possibilities with which to fill in that "something", and by far the most likely. The alternatives that have been given here just don't add up. Low resolution? The only resolution that matters in a collection of adjacent bubbles is bubble-size, and these bubbles have clearly not shrunk too small to discern as bubbles. Monitor that's amazingly crappy at producing distinct colors right in the area where color blindness most often strikes? Such a glaringly gross defect not only is rare in production to begin with but also is made even rarer in retail, practically non-existent, by basic QC product-testing at the factory, and an exception would have been noticed by its users in other contexts before. The prevalence of color blindness, especially including its milder forms, in the real-world population, is known to be well above any even faintly reasonable estimate of the odds of getting such a defective product (and not having noticed it before). Healthy skepticism of the somewhat unlikely should not drive us toward automatic acceptance of the staggeringly unlikely.
For the record, I'd make a lousy <insert healthcare professional here> for a lot of reasons. My wife is a nurse and is pretty much convinced I'd be run out of any health facility by a combination of staff, patients, torches and pick-forks.
Caution: I may contain caffeine.
here. What's going on is that there's a pattern of lines in reds, greens, and browns that dominates the image. But for people who can't distinguish between red, green, and brown very well, they don't see that distinct pattern, and instead they see a more subtle pattern that crosses those boundaries. If you look very closely, you may be able to see the pattern.
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.
Last edited by NorthernDevo; 2017-Mar-11 at 10:20 PM. Reason: Changed 'ignoring' for 'considering'; I changed my argument.
"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there's no difference."
"Aikido: the art of hitting people with planets."
What if the evergreen was a "blue spruce" or was illuminated by a blue or cloudy sky but not directly by the sun?
I don't think I'm color blind, but having worked in color for photography and publishing in HS I thought I had developed a keen eye for shades. When I enlisted, MEPS said I was colorblind because I failed the test. However, I couldn't see the numbers in the images because they flipped them too fast and it was just a blur. But I know that when I look at them I can see an obvious number, but can still see other possible numbers depending on which colors they want me to connect. MEPS then had me do a lantern test, but they didn't tell me what colors were being shown, so my answer was either green or red, but they had white ones which I listed as green because I didn't know it was an option and assumed the lamp was wearing off its paint. My mom thinks I should be colorblind because she claims to be colorblind "in shades", whatever that means and that it's always sex-linked. I disputed that and wonder if maybe I was switched at birth - we do have different blood types too.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
It's a feature of dichromatic colour blindess that there's a neutral point within the spectrum that's indistinguishable from grey of the same brightness. For the two varieties of red-green blindness, it sits in the cyan range (for yellow-blue colour blindness it sits in the yellow range). To the long wavelength side of the neutral point, someone with red-green blindness sees shades of a single primary colour we could call ryg, for red-yellow-green; to the short-wavelength side they see blue, but may have an abnormal or absent transition to violet. The neutral point is very narrow, though, and you don't need to move far either side of it to get a sensation of colour.
So you need quite specific conditions, very close to the neutral point, for a colour-blind person to report "grey" when a colour is present. There's no way that all evergreens would appear grey to someone with the common variety of red-green blindness, but it's certainly possible on a given day, with a given tree, that one might appear grey.
As above, so below
I worked with a programmer that was color blind. The assistant programmer picked all of the colors for the application, but made sure the color pallet was something the a color blind person could distinguish. To be honest, it was rather dull, almost everything was blue or grey. There was one band of very light grey where deep red text would appear, but the contrast was enough that it wasn't a problem.
I didn't know this until I passed my job on to someone else. The very first thing they did was change the coding reqs to a color coded design where color indicated importance. Guess what happened? Stuff didn't get done in the right order.
Grrr. There was nothing wrong with "high", "medium" and "low" priority rows, neatly sorted by priority. Worse, the guy had 9 levels of priority plus "when convenient". Do you know when programmers hit "when convenient" items? When you give them a real priority.
Caution: I may contain caffeine.
That's me. I don't know what kind of colour blindness I have. I can see the transition between two 128 value RGB values 1 value apart. I can pass all the common CB tests. But I often misidentify colours, especially lines on screen. And I have huge problems naming non-primary colours. I don't mean just those secret language words women use, but also the difference between eg purple and pink. I know pink when it's Barbie, but when things become a bit more reddish and translucent or fluo I'm at a loss. And it feels to me as if I need a lot of concentration/effort/it feels really tiring to identify some colours or see different colours, even though in RGB I see the smallest difference.They can, however, be bad at using color words to describe what they see because they can't learn what the words mean.
I don't think that's unusual, except to the extent that you seem to be worried about it.
Colour names chop up a continuum into a set of discrete patches, and there are always going to be arguments at the edges, even if we all had exactly the same visual pigments and neural wiring. Simply having (or lacking) words for certain territories of the colour chart influences your colour perception. In Scots Gaelic, there's not much effort to distinguish green from blue - so the Gaels would have been a little puzzled by people who insist on the difference between jade, aqua, teal and turquoise.
If you have a digital camera or a camera on your phone, you could try to display the image you posted on your computer, take a photo of what is displayed on the screen, and post that photo.
Of course, it is not always easy to get a good photo of a screen, but as long as it isn't over or under exposed, it would probably at least rule out any larger problems with your system settings/monitor.
Still, it is obviously best to just go to a doctor and have a proper test done.
From what I understand, the more common forms of color blindness isn't actually a lack of color perception, but rather that there is a difference in formation of one(or more) of the pigments used for color vision from people with normal vision.
For example, I think the most common red-green color blindness is a "green" pigment that has an anomalous wavelength sensitivity that is closer to the red than in most people.
Last edited by Nicolas; 2017-Mar-14 at 08:31 PM.
Is there an issue in that on-screen tests uses additive mixing to make colours (red, green, blue sub-pixels on the monitor) but printed tests use subtractive mixing (cyan, magenta and yellow inks?)?
I'd have thought the standard tests couldn't just be translated directly.
(Sorry if that's already covered, I did read back in the thread and didn't see it.)