Talk:EnChroma

Educational Project Page

Application for course page currently pending on Wikipedia:Education noticeboard Limelightangel (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright

copyright must be taken in consideration. we must be careful and do not use copyrighted content.--05lauraliuc (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Images

we need to work on adding more images, need at least 2 or 3 --05lauraliuc (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I added a picture but I think we need at least another one! --Colussisi (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw it, I agree with you , it is a good image to have on the page.--05lauraliuc (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking for pictures, but most of them are just replications of the one we have already put! I don't know what to search.--Bittabitti (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The image 1=> out of focus, image 2 focused... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalRemi (talk • contribs) 08:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

This page needs the inclusion of regular references. Limelightangel (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Usernames in Red

By completing the student online training and editting other pages, you evidence experience with the platform and your usernames will turn from red to blue. Limelightangel (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Use of Categories

This draft page needs putting in relevant Categories. Limelightangel (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Reference 2 needs correcting to comply with conventions - use the Cite Template for news sources, and include the author. Limelightangel (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Read like an advert

This is basically no good evidence... We have three pubmed indexed primary sources https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=EnChroma Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I made some significant changes to better capture the independent criticism of this product. I also removed the Advert banner. Rp2006 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The photos are misleading

The photos of the "ordinary scene" (a courthouse) are not both in focus. The EnChroma lens photo is in much better focus than the other one. So like is not being compared to like, making the EnChroma photo look better. This is misleading. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it. Rp2006 (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article has gotten a bit out of hand. Much of the unbiased information (EnChroma lenses are literally a type of color blind glasses plus all the information on the actual company has disappeared?) has just been replaced with cherry-picked skepticism, possibly as vindication from the MegaLag video. We don't need to include undue weight on the support for the lenses, but this has gotten ridiculously and messily biased on the skeptic side and thrown the style guide out the window. I've put a template on it until I get some time for this next month. Curran919 (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that there is no reliably sourced independant support for the lenses, but a plethora of reliable independantly sourced evidence against them. At this point, I feel that WP:FRINGE needs to be the governing wikipedia policy for the article, and that the article should state, in Wikipedia's voice, that the claims made by the company are not backed by the scientific consensus. The independant research section could use some cleaning up and prose tightening, but I would suggest that it needs to remain the bulk of the article-- the main problem I see right now is that the article is structured in terms of point/counter-point, of two sides laying out their claims and one side happens to be much longer than the other. Instead, while the article should state what the manufacturer's claims are for context, we need to say that those claims are incorrect, and then explain why those claims are incorrect. Because that's what reliable sources and scientific consensus tells us. Fieari (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with @Fieari. LukeTriton (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple claims made by EnChroma. Some of them are true and some false. For example, while the glasses cannot increase the gamut of the eye (and cannot grant normal or near-normal vision, or even "correct" color blindness), they can increase the gamut visible in a given scene, by selectively increasing the saturation of some colors. This latter claim applies to the colorblind (anomalous trichromats) as well as color normals (trichromats), but is a legitimate net positive of the lenses that should not be ignored. Thirdly, the lenses can also selectively change relative brightness of colors in a scene, which may increase or decrease contrast, but in the case of images with tuned-contrast (e.g. ishihara plates), they increase contrast, making the plates clearly visible to the colorblind (just like many color-tinted foils do). While I am not an EnChroma proponent and I do not like the recent IP-edit injecting biased pro-info, I think labeling this as wp:fringe is overkill. There are independent studies that support EnChroma, this is probably the best recent example: [1], as the independence of earlier pro-articles has been questioned (simply according to their open disclosures). Jeff Rabin is pretty well-known and IMO credible in the colorblind world. We could break it into sections for each of the claims, which would better organize the information and avoid point-counterpoint. Would that fit MOS? Curran919 (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)