16 comments

  • Ethan BondEthan Bond, over 4 years ago (edited over 4 years ago )

    Pretty cool technical information. I had never been able to pin down exactly what makes a color combination vibrate, and I like your explanation hinging on equiluminance.

    It's really misleading to represent colorblindness with examples of monochromacy ("full color blindness"), though. Monochromacy affects significantly less than 0.01% of the population.

    Apologies for the potato-like quality, the online simulator tool apparently compresses like there's no tomorrow, but for more realistic simulations:

    Protanomaly - 1% of male pop., 0.03% of female pop.

    Deuteranomaly - 5% of male pop., 0.35% of female pop.

    NoCoffee is a Chrome Extension you can use to test your work with tons of different vision problems.

    8 points
    • Eli SchiffEli Schiff, over 4 years ago

      Well put–solid feedback.

      I couldn't find any particularly thorough explanations of color vibration online (the ones I could find were mostly too simplistic) so I figured I'd write one up.

      That looks like a great extension. Thanks!

      1 point
    • Jeff CouturierJeff Couturier, over 4 years ago

      Color Oracle is another great app for OSX that helps you simulate various versions of color blindness.

      3 points
    • Juan RiosJuan Rios, over 4 years ago

      Thanks for the article and the chrome extension. Now I don't have to bother a colleague to color-proof my designs

      1 point
    • Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, over 4 years ago

      It's really misleading to represent colorblindness with examples of monochromacy ("full color blindness"), though. Monochromacy affects significantly less than 0.01% of the population.

      It definitely is misleading, but if you’re only going to do one quick test, checking how your designs look when monochrome is a great way to go. If things are okay monochrome, they will definitely be okay for more subtle colour blindness.

      6 points
      • Ethan BondEthan Bond, over 4 years ago

        Fair point! I'd personally prefer to see people using one of the various purpose-made tools for vision degradation, but if it's monochromacy or nothing, monochromacy is the way to go.

        1 point
  • Peiran TanPeiran Tan, over 4 years ago

    Perfectly demonstrated how much Dutch design students’ experiments had inadvertently caused massive visual pollution.

    1 point
  • maksim razbo, over 4 years ago

    It's a first time I hear about vibrating colors!

    1 point
  • Corin EdwardsCorin Edwards, over 4 years ago (edited over 4 years ago )

    It is important to note the distinctions between each medium which cause vibrating color to be somewhat more permissible in print, and less so for web.

    Wait what?

    Why is it more permissible in one and not the other?

    0 points
    • Eli SchiffEli Schiff, over 4 years ago

      In print, you are not tasked with interacting beyond reading. Legibility is important, but it can be traded off for blunt impact should the designer care to make that compromise. On screen media, legibility is even more crucial due to the interactive component.

      1 point
      • Corin EdwardsCorin Edwards, over 4 years ago (edited over 4 years ago )

        I see no reason why you can't make the same trade of legibility for impact on screen. It seems to me that screen is the better fit for provocative uses of colour since it can make its impact and also change itself to meet a wider range of needs.

        • Screen media can be animated, so that trade can be temporary.
        • Screen media can be interactive, so that trade can be controlled by the user or the author.

        Screen can have its cake and eat it too.

        In contrast print is limited because it is static.

        0 points
    • Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, over 4 years ago

      Print itself also limits gamut — more colours are typically possible on screens (that can often address the full sRGB gamut, or close to it). This means more saturated colours are possible on screen than in print, especially if you’re comparing CMYK offset printing rather than spot colour printing.

      3 points
      • Corin EdwardsCorin Edwards, over 4 years ago

        That's a pretty narrow definition of print. Consider fifth colour metallics and fluros.

        0 points
        • Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, over 4 years ago

          I did say “especially if you’re comparing CMYK offset printing”, which makes up the majority of the print world. Also, you’re still talking about additive vs subtractive colour spaces.

          Do you think spot colours offer a gamut that’s as wide as RGB displays? If so, do you have evidence to support that position?

          3 points