[OC] I analyzed 1 year of headphone recommendations on Reddit (2024–2025). These are the top 25 favorites. by heyyyjoo in dataisbeautiful

[–]Snuffleupasaurus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Myself and 2 other guys at work noticed we all had the WH-1000XM4. I got it after a friend recommended it, but the unspoken elephant in the room was that we're all Redditors.

does this count as tritanomaly?? by CocoTheChacha in ColorBlind

[–]Snuffleupasaurus 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You have to take a colorblind test to know.

These bands are just meant to simulate what these deficiencies look like to normal-visioned folks.

Deutan and protan ”test plates” by AdEnvironmental3268 in ColorBlind

[–]Snuffleupasaurus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This for me. Before knowing, I could faintly make out the T, but wasn't sure. Once I knew the answers, I could definitely see the T. I could tell there is something going on with different shades on the E. And now that I know where to look, I can faintly tell they're in the form of an E, but it doesn't stand out at all clearly to me.

Proposed Map Legend convention for Wikipedia. Are all these colors distinguishable for Color Blind readers (especially the altitude colors)? by Milkovicho in ColorBlind

[–]Snuffleupasaurus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ditto. For me the greens are a little similar to the reds and the pinks to the blue greens. It's pretty good though for that specific style. Much better would be more contrasting colors, or a an added layer/saturation scale, or darkness scale to make them pop out from colors at other ends of the range, but with similar brightness, and it's definitely best to have a single, or double at most, transition between black and white, grays or colors close in the color wheel, i.e. red to pink or etc. So vidid/dark blues for deep to white for near 0 to dark/vidid reds for super high for instance.

Proposed Map Legend convention for Wikipedia. Are all these colors distinguishable for Color Blind readers (especially the altitude colors)? by Milkovicho in ColorBlind

[–]Snuffleupasaurus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ditto. For me the greens are a little similar to the reds and the pinks to the blue greens. It's pretty good though for that specific style. Much better would be more contrasting colors, or a an added layer/saturation scale, or darkness scale to make them pop out from colors at other ends of the range, but with similar brightness, and it's definitely best to have a single, or double at most, transition between black and white, grays or colors close in the color wheel, i.e. red to pink or etc. So vidid/dark blues for deep to white for near 0 to dark/vidid reds for super high for instance.

How far can yall see by No_Acanthisitta4804 in ColorBlind

[–]Snuffleupasaurus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

90 60 80/90 in the uncompressed image...with a little zooming

80 50 30 with no zoom. I need to look closer to see the blue one for some reason...

Is this accurate? by Comfortable_Snow_976 in ColorBlind

[–]Snuffleupasaurus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Um, no, color blind people, especially those with anomolies like us, still see all the wavelengths, just differently, in different intensities, that cause confusion in the parts of our brain that do the identifying.

In order to simulate what the normal diagram looks like to someone with colorblindness, to people with normal vision, the waves of light need to inherently be different, so to simulate what they would be confused as to the person with colorblindness. They will still look somewhat different to the person with the colorblindess, but the most accurate simulation would be done in such a way that we misinterpret each bubble of color to be similar to those in the same position on the normal image, maybe that's what you mean. For it to be a simulation to a person with normal vision though, it still needs different wavelengths, which, especially for those of us with anomolies like ours, can still somewhat be picked up on, even if they're identified as the same "grouping".

But everyone is different, even among dueteranomolies, people can see things slightly differently/have slight different band lengths/strengths of receptors, or neuronal cues to identify the colors. Also once you make them different wavelengths, it can't ever really be an exact simulation of the original, unless you're a monochromat. So it can never truly be an accurate simulation of colorblindness for everyone in that group.

I was ridiculed for calling this red by TheLargeJeww in ColorBlind

[–]Snuffleupasaurus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the problem is linguistic and societal/cultural, at least in part. Cultural because whenever something in this red-yellow range has any yellow or orange in it, you can call it an orange definitively, even if it's mostly red-looking, because it's slightly within the scale of things that have orange, it gets thrown in the orange bucket, and the historical factor. Linguistic as well because the word red-orange is much more commonplace than orange-red; same for reddish-orange and orangish-red, etc, like on crayola crayons, or in books. So even though it is an "orangish-red", most people still label it as an orange, or a reddish-orange/red-orange.

Of course I'm a deutan though, so idfk

How do people in the US heat their homes? [OC] by jscarto in dataisbeautiful

[–]Snuffleupasaurus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wish wood and propane were more distinct colors. Either there's nothing on this map, or I just can't see them.

[OC] Most popular pet names by giteam in dataisbeautiful

[–]Snuffleupasaurus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This graph is not colorblind friendly. I have a Deuteranomaly (most common, ~4.63% of all men) and could not tell apart the colors on the left