Cool Guides
Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community
1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.
2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.
3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.
4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.
5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.
6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.
Community Guidelines
-
Direct Image Links Only Only direct links to .png, .jpg, and .jpeg image formats are permitted.
-
Educational Infographics Only Infographics must aim to educate and inform with structured content. Purely narrative or non-informative infographics may be removed.
-
Serious Guides Only Nonserious or comedy-based guides will be removed.
-
No Harmful Content Guides promoting dangerous or harmful activities/materials will be removed. This includes content intended to cause harm to others.
By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!
view the rest of the comments
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.