|
http://www.infoq.com/articles/Colors-UI[^]
here you can see the colour blindness on general population, not "IT" only 
it seems that male are more subject to colour-blindness, maybe that's why we get a 10% on codeproject
|
|
|
|
|
(or 16 if you count inverse video mode)
All else is marketing :-P
|
|
|
|
|
??????
I also thought there to be 3 colors, based upon your perspective:
Additive: Cyan, Magenta & Yellow (although RGB will work, as well)
Subtractive: Red/Blue/Yellow
Also, the absence of all colors and presence of all, as minifested by black and white. Not colors, per-se.
Like, for example, the monitor you're looking at right now - which can make "all" possible colors by varying the intensities of R/G/B pixels.
Or have I missed something all these years?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: ??????
He's joking about old VGA displays.
Balboos wrote: I also thought there to be 3 colors, based upon your perspective:
Nope. There are more than 3 colors in the visible spectrum of the human eye. However, in a given color space, we use a set of several colors to combine in N possibilities to produce more colors. Each color intensity (on a computer display only) will produce certain intensities of phosphors which in turn produce certain photons our eyes can pick up. But don't confuse this with saying there's only 3 colors.
Also, in regards to additive and subtractive, that's more numerical and how the color systems work for each space. It's no indication on how many visible colors they're are to the human eye - although to do mimic how black and white works but that's a different story.
Just the fact we have RGB and CMYK should be enough proof to show you that a computer representation of a color space's base colors are just starting points.
For more information check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Just a few notes:
The "old VGA displays" had 256 simultaneous colors - I had one of those 8-bit beauties.
You mean EGA - which had 16 (of 64) simultaneous colors.
or maybe you should have picked CGA (3 simultaneous colors) [let's forget the old monochromes].
The 'more than 3 colors in the visible spectrum' concept is not really correct. The entire electromagnetic spectrum, of which the visible is a pathetically narrow slice, is (practically) a continuum. That, however, is peripheral to the question at hand.
It's more like a linear algebra construct: color-space, because of our r/g & b/y perceptior cells, can be defined completely as a 3 dimensional construct: 3 vectors, which we can roughly call primary colors, can create the entire color space. Judicious selection of these basis sets allows for such tasks as printing, color photography, and LCD's.
This, however, I reemphasize, is a perceptual description. The (colored) light stimulates the (cone) cells, which we'll initially approximate as binary sensors. The pattern is translated to the colors within the brain. I will admit that I am not sure, to what extent, cone-cells exhibit an analog response. Can they supply more than simple t/f for a given color stimulation? I lean towards yes, they can, but feel too lazy to look it up right now.
The human eye/brain signal processing is remarkable (a memory from a college physics class, after spending a while on optics). It eye should hardly work at all, but it does.
Be seenin' ya'
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: You mean EGA - which had 16 (of 64) simultaneous colors.
Well, technically speaking yeah you're right, but my brain is aging and I haven't used the term EGA in over a decade. So it's all VGA to me, muwahahahah! But, nevertheless that's what his joke was about.
Balboos wrote: The 'more than 3 colors in the visible spectrum' concept is not really correct. The entire electromagnetic spectrum, of which the visible is a pathetically narrow slice, is (practically) a continuum. That, however, is peripheral to the question at hand.
No it's correct, you're comparing apples to oranges if you want to get caught up in how many colors we can perceive compared to the point I made - which was there's more than 3 or 4 colors in our visible spectrum and the color space examples you used do not mean there's only 3 or 4.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: you're comparing apples to oranges
No - I'm trying to stay on topic (a little) - which is color-blindness.
However, going back to the much more enjoyable off-topic nature. If you refer back to the EM Spectrum, than there's an effectively infinite number of colors. Or, more correctly, the number of colors depends upon how good your cutting tool is when you try to seperate them.
A really really good diffraction grating (no one uses prisms anymore). may allow you to resolve the electronic discrete transitions (and then you discover all the black spaces bettween the every changing colors of the rainbow). And an oscillating emf around the source and they fatten up and merge. In this view, however, the number of colors is only limited by the diversity of electronic transitions that occur that fall into the visible spectrum AND then convolute that with the electromagnetic fluctuation (if any) in the environment (we're staying atomic - so rotations and vibrations are mercifully ignored).
In a way, our disagreement is philosophical. I am taking the perceptual perspective - where we actually have 'color'** - and you're taking the more physical perspective wherein each resolved wavelength is a discrete color.
(Please excuse my technocretia* - In real life I used to do laser photochemistry when lasers had to be built from parts and not ordered on-line.).
*technical excretion
** Consider how the 'color wheel' concept has no place in spectroscopy
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
And there I thought it was all about racism  
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: The 'more than 3 colors in the visible spectrum' concept is not really correct. The entire electromagnetic spectrum, of which the visible is a pathetically narrow slice, is (practically) a continuum. That, however, is peripheral to the question at hand.
In fact it's infinitesimal, since the electromagnetic spectrum is mathematically infinite (though I'm sure not physically infinite).
Having said that, I'm not really sure what your point is. There are actually an infinite number of different colours because the spectrum is continuous. That said, based on our biology and the fact that we see colours as a combination of three dimensions, then that allows us to see/conceptualize colours in a three-dimensional space. But that's specifically related to our physical perception of colour, and in theory you could have another species that saw it as two- or four-dimensional.
I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, just elaborating.
Sad but true: 4/3 of Americans have difficulty with simple fractions.
There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
{o,o}.oO( Check out my blog! )
|)””’) http://pihole.org/
-”-”-
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Nope. There are more than 3 colors in the visible spectrum of the human eye.
Actually, aren't there exactly three kinds of colour receptors in the human eye--one for red, green, blue? As well as rods for lightness/darkness. That's what I remember but that was a long time ago. I could have become confused along the way. :P
Sad but true: 4/3 of Americans have difficulty with simple fractions.
There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
{o,o}.oO( Check out my blog! )
|)””’) http://pihole.org/
-”-”-
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: I also thought there to be 3 colors, based upon your perspective:
Additive: Cyan, Magenta & Yellow (although RGB will work, as well)
Subtractive: Red/Blue/Yellow
Actually the subtractive is Red, Green, Blue (wait isn't that additive and the CMY subtractive?). You can also use Red, Blue and Yellow as pigments, but only because blue is close to cyan and red is close to magenta, but they don't result in "proper" combinations.
Sad but true: 4/3 of Americans have difficulty with simple fractions.
There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
{o,o}.oO( Check out my blog! )
|)””’) http://pihole.org/
-”-”-
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you've been missing the brain 
A lot of color perception happens beyond the sensors. Why do we put color names where we put them? How much does that differ? There's an ongoing debate on how much this is cultural and how much genetic, and how much of the cultural part is linguistics.
One "teaser" can be found here: here[^]
some more[^]
Moooaaaaar!!![^]
But beyond that, the only thing I would like to add:
Wouldn't it makes sense to grant white full color rights for additive, and black full color rights for subtractive color generation?
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote: Wouldn't it makes sense to grant white full color rights for additive, and black full color rights for subtractive color generation?
Is there nothing free from political correctness?
The articles are interesting, but, they are referring to perception. The human basis set for colors, it seems, is roughly 'all the colors of the rainbow': about 6 or so for most cultures.
This part of the thread, oddly enough, was referring to PC monitors and how they created their colors. Human conventions, aside, we seem to be able to create our full perceputal set with a group of three.
An interesting though I've always had was - were I to see through your eyes - would I still call red red (etc.)? As long as we all look at the same color and give it the same name, we'd have trouble determining if we actually perceive them the same. Considering the poor taste in color exhibited by some, I'm beginning to wonder if they are mis-wired in their perception as compared to my perceptions (a.k.a., perfection).
So, in a nut shell - protestors may line up at my doors, but I will not give full color rights to black and white - nor those nasty little greys!
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: Is there nothing free from political correctness?
It was more about color definition correctnes, I don't know how Obama came in here
Balboos wrote: An interesting though I've always had was - were I to see through your eyes - would I still call red red
I wonder that, too. However, I'd wager a gues that the whole visual cortex largely needs to be rewired to see anything sensible at all, and during this reprogramming, color perception would also be re-defined.
Balboos wrote: a.k.a., perfection.
Wait, you perceive colors the same way I do? 
|
|
|
|
|
I have no clue why this was voted down, but enjoy my 5 to make up for it. I thought it was funny. 
|
|
|
|
|
There is only one colour... but it comes in many wavelengths.
|
|
|
|
|
When you start seeing text in moving green letters after 13 hours of straight non-stop programming  ?
|
|
|
|
|
I had a similar experience. Except mine was a bit longer and I was in a hospital when I opened my eyes
|
|
|
|
|
Gmail has a cool "terminal" skin now so I see green moving text everyday. Sweeet! 
Greetings - Gajatko
Portable.NET is part of DotGNU, a project to build a complete Free Software replacement for .NET - a system that truly belongs to the developers.
|
|
|
|
|
High.
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
For those afflicted, what do you feel when following this link[^]?
Male vs. female is probably the deciding factor why we peak above the average.
Just for the fun of it:
how does my world look like[^]
modified on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:48 AM
|
|
|
|
|
I think that the National average is 8% for men and only 0.8% for women. The 0.8% if probable for the ones that didn't understand the question!!
Why is it when you are busy everyone whats it yesterday, But when your not no-one has any work for you?
|
|
|
|
|
I see nothing but dots... oh, hang on, there is a '2' in all those dots, near the end.... 
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote: For those afflicted, what do you feel
Slight irritation (Is this really something other than a hive of unrelated dots? You sure?). As if reality was behind a shop window - you can't get it but you're not sure if you have to anyway.
Well, we certainly will be above the average. That's because many colour blindness/weakness issues are genetically related to men only. Women simply can't get them. And AFAIK by far the most software development people are male...
- Or are these "8%" mentioned already men-only? Otherwise, it would seem a bit high to me... -
Regards
Thomas
www.thomas-weller.de
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Programmer - an organism that turns coffee into software.
|
|
|
|
|
That could be a reason why so many GUIs look horrible...
This statement is false.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
