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)

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)

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:, 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)
 * are you an enchroma salesman or something 81.100.136.25 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I too agree with @Fieari that there needs to be stricter governance of this article. The problem with this page is that it largely focuses on what EnChroma’s glasses “can do” while failing to address the false narratives and pseudoscientific concepts that EnChroma built their brand upon. I feel it’s not my place to make edits myself, so I will just leave my thoughts here and leave some suggested edits in this Google Doc.
 * The central misconception EnChroma has fostered among users is that their glasses allow CVD observers to perceive new colors for the first time. This has been the driving narrative from EnChroma since day one. It’s evident in their advertising, social media, news segments, podcasts, etc. Of the ten peer-reviewed papers I’ve reviewed, not one supports this claim, and it’s a concept that defies established scientific principles. This should be the first thing addressed in this article and top of mind throughout.
 * To state that there are independent studies supporting EnChroma is somewhat disingenuous because these papers do not support the core value proposition EnChroma used to sell their glasses. Customers were not sold on the fact that the glasses “increase chromatic contrast along the red-green axis”; they were sold on the hope of experiencing new colors. I’m not suggesting the real benefits shouldn’t be highlighted—they should be—but carefully.
 * For example, the “Working Principle” section of this article is accurate in that it explains how the technology actually works, but it fails to address the pseudoscientific explanation EnChroma has pushed to consumers. For years, the company has claimed that the narrow band absorption in their lens separates the spectral sensitivity of the red and green cones, restoring some form of normalcy in the eye. There’s evidence of this on their website, in news articles, podcasts, and interviews with their Chief Science Officer, Don McPherson. This must be addressed.
 * I like the idea of creating a section that addresses each of their claims, with a separate section detailing the actual value of the glasses. Alternatively, you could do something like a functional value vs. promise benefit section? Either way, this article should fairly criticise what has been a ongoing attempt to intentionally mislead the CVD community for financial gain. Here's an advert they're running on Google that has been shown to 1.5 people insinuating that the glasses cure monochromacy. Here's another. Examples like these should be included in this article as testament to the company's ethics. Megalag96 (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Megalag96 This isn't so much a question of whether criticisms of the advertising claims are WP:DUE, but is more a question of whether they are WP:original research, which is one of the strongest tenets of wikipedia. I have also had others use my youtube videos as sources (e.g. ColorADD, also see my last thread on that talk page of that article), but while a youtube video may be enough to show that criticism exists, in general, it is not enough to underlie a scientific refutation. Something that may be acceptable, referencing your videos, may be: "despite Enchroma's award-winning online advertising, their ads have been criticized for misleading potential buyers in the efficacy of the lenses." Anything more than that would probably require a more reliable source (WP:SCIRS).
 * Unfortunately, I feel like every anti-Enchroma publication doesn't exactly hit the nail on the head with enumerating exactly what the glasses can do and what they can't. Most focus on a single research question, which focuses on refuting a specific claim instead of explaining what they CAN theoretically and/or practically do. Now that the Enchroma lit is hitting more than a dozen papers, maybe a literature review is in order, but I also think the research in the pro-enchroma and anti-enchroma camps is fairly weak either way. Curran919 (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)