Nice job. Kind of reminds me of this one which increases the number of squares with the odd-one out becoming more subtle as you progress further in the game, but I prefer your sliding mechanic better for this kind of game.
Ooh this one is fun too! Though it doesn't get quite as hard as the slider one. Breezed through all 47 levels of this pretty easily while there were one or two impossible seeming ones in the slider.
This is fun! I just played once and got 0.0016, which it says is "absurdly below the theoretical limit"...
Okay, tried again and got 0.0034 which is still says is beyond the human limit! I'll have to give this to my mum because we often argue about colours and I suspect she might be a tetrachromat.
This test is subject to the display regime on which it's presented. A given display may hide or amplify differences due to lack of conformance with the color space for the test data.
The code contains a function that, given the target ΔE, generates two colors in floating-point Oklab representation, separated by that distance. But there is no check whether the two generated colors end up rounding to exactly the same one on 8-bit displays. So, I was asked to find a boundary (while the claim was that there were two distinct colors 0.0013 ΔE apart) between RGB(80, 83, 152) and RGB(80, 83, 152). Obviously unfair.
not knowing anything about color, i will admit i am a bit confused. i scored 0.0034 and was told "if you're not already calibrating displays for a living, you're leaving money on the table". which, to me, implied i did quite well!
but, reading the scores posted here, most people are doing a lot better than me. i doubt all of us are crazy good...
so, i assume the front page is a typo: "most people land around 0.02" (should be 0.002, not 0.02)? if yes, then i am back to not understanding the message i got about calibrating displays, because i did quite a bit worse than 0.002.
edit: nerd-sniping myself a little bit. but it appears (stressing: i know nothing) the "0.02" is accurate, but calculated by showing someone two colors and asking "are these different" until the person answers the question correctly 50% of the time. which is a different question than "where, precisely, is the line between these two colors". with the different question, it ends up compressing the result down by about an order of magnitude.
Right. The average score is under different test conditions. Obviously this game is a little silly version with very little accuracy to the lab testing, but hopefully it gets people thinking about this stuff a bit more! Which given your investigations into this, I would say it has succeeded.
I'm colorblind, but I ended up getting a 0.0028 "much better than average" score. Hmm... Fun site!
To promote some further reading:
OKLab isn't actually a perceptually uniform colorspace. It's better than others, but it was specifically chosen as a tradeoff between accuracy and speed (hence the name OK). When you start digging this deep, you quickly learn that we have yet to invent any perceptually uniform colorspaces; even the most precise models we have end up using fits and approximations. Color has some really inconvenient properties like depending strongly on brightness and background. Frankly, given the differences in human biology (having orders of magnitude differences in relative numbers of each cone, for instance), it's surprising we agree as much as we do! Human color perception is an endless pit of complexity.
(Note, I don't say any of this to detract from what you've built here, merely expand. Your site is awesome and I love it!)
If 0.02 is the JND of deltaEOK, how come everybody is getting results an order of magnitude smaller? Even the author himself (at https://www.keithcirkel.co.uk/too-much-color/) says they get 0.0028, but never elaborate on the significance of that result.
JND is an average. A lot of people will do a lot worse. The measure, as I understand it, is also under different test conditions, while this is a game where people are on their own and able to - for example - tilt their head trying to find the exact angle to see the difference.
Readit News
https://vectorization.eu/color-perception-test
Okay, tried again and got 0.0034 which is still says is beyond the human limit! I'll have to give this to my mum because we often argue about colours and I suspect she might be a tetrachromat.
Both tests on a Pixel 10 btw
Here's the related article on how much accuracy is really needed in CSS values. https://www.keithcirkel.co.uk/too-much-color/
The code contains a function that, given the target ΔE, generates two colors in floating-point Oklab representation, separated by that distance. But there is no check whether the two generated colors end up rounding to exactly the same one on 8-bit displays. So, I was asked to find a boundary (while the claim was that there were two distinct colors 0.0013 ΔE apart) between RGB(80, 83, 152) and RGB(80, 83, 152). Obviously unfair.
not knowing anything about color, i will admit i am a bit confused. i scored 0.0034 and was told "if you're not already calibrating displays for a living, you're leaving money on the table". which, to me, implied i did quite well!
but, reading the scores posted here, most people are doing a lot better than me. i doubt all of us are crazy good...
so, i assume the front page is a typo: "most people land around 0.02" (should be 0.002, not 0.02)? if yes, then i am back to not understanding the message i got about calibrating displays, because i did quite a bit worse than 0.002.
edit: nerd-sniping myself a little bit. but it appears (stressing: i know nothing) the "0.02" is accurate, but calculated by showing someone two colors and asking "are these different" until the person answers the question correctly 50% of the time. which is a different question than "where, precisely, is the line between these two colors". with the different question, it ends up compressing the result down by about an order of magnitude.
absolutely! thanks for posting it and the associated article.
To promote some further reading:
OKLab isn't actually a perceptually uniform colorspace. It's better than others, but it was specifically chosen as a tradeoff between accuracy and speed (hence the name OK). When you start digging this deep, you quickly learn that we have yet to invent any perceptually uniform colorspaces; even the most precise models we have end up using fits and approximations. Color has some really inconvenient properties like depending strongly on brightness and background. Frankly, given the differences in human biology (having orders of magnitude differences in relative numbers of each cone, for instance), it's surprising we agree as much as we do! Human color perception is an endless pit of complexity.
(Note, I don't say any of this to detract from what you've built here, merely expand. Your site is awesome and I love it!)
But I think this kind of test can really be limited on your display and color profiles.
Most of my misses were on blues, but sometimes the line was obvious. Other times, I could “see” many phantom bars of slightly different colors.
And in bright sunlight, I can see variations in the film in my phone screen. I suspect this could affect a test like this.
I tried it on a recent Pixel with brightness set to two-thirds, and this is my result:
https://www.keithcirkel.co.uk/whats-my-jnd/?r=ArggKP__c4_b
https://hnarcade.com/games/games/what-s-my-jnd