Twisted Paths in Color Space

Jan Koenderink, Andrea van Doorn, Vebjrn Ekroll

University of Leuven (KU Leuven) & Utrecht University
Color pickers are frequently used in visual design. Apple color picker Adobe color picker
Various mutually very different implementations are
found in many applications, and on the Internet. Color
pickers are also integrated in many graphical user
interfaces.

Design objectives apparently vary all over the place. In

this work we compare the relative advantages of some
common color pickers.

Observers have to match the color of the

upper disk to the color of the lower disk
using one of the five color pickers.

The Apple color picker is similar to a color picker often found on Apple
desk tops. It emulates the Newton color circle, but has an additional
brightness slider.

The Adobe color picker is similar to the Apple color picker, but doesnt
exploit the periodicity of the color circle.
Hering color picker
The Hering color picker implements an opponent Y-B, R-G, and W-K
scheme.

The Ostwald color picker uses Ostwalds color, white and black-content
format.

The RGB color picker implements the most common, basic interface, raw R,
G, and B coordinate values.
Ostwald color picker RGB picker
AD, Ostwald, trial 2
Observers are confronted with a starting color, and a target 1.

color. They are instructed to change the starting color, so as to 0.8

match the target color, using one of the interfaces. They are
free to use their own time. 0.6

Starting and target colors are antipodal vertices taken from a 0.4

regular polyhedron (here dodecahedron) centered on the 0.2

median gray color - the center of the RGB-cube. 0.

0 10 20

AD, RGB, trial 17

We monitor the orbit from starting to target color. This is a 1.

sequence of RGB-coordinates, parameterized by time. A 0.8

summary representation shows merely the distance to the target

0.6
as a function of time.
The distance to target typically decreases fast, then becomes 0.4

erratic as the observer iterates. After a minute or so it doesnt 0.2

really improve any more. 0.

0 10 20

A measure of performance
8 Hering

How good is an interface for a given observer? The main criteria are speed RGB
(ease of use) and precision (final distance from target).
6 Adobe
Figure of Merit

RGB
1
We plot the median time needed to Apple
0.5
reach a given distance from target
(notice that the distance may well 4 Ostwald
increase again!) over all orbits. The
0.2
time for a criterion level of 0.2 is
0.1
taken as a measure of speed. 2
final errors
0.05 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
We consider the histogram of all 8
AD JK VE
final distances from the target over
We show results for three observers (the authors, AD, JK, and VE). For each observer we plot
6
all orbits. The median is defined as a
measure of precision. 4 the FOM for the five interfaces.
(These examples for RGB interface, 2
Notice fairly large differences in absolute performance. There is an evident invariance feature
observer AD.) in these results though. The order of the FOM for the interfaces is the same for all observers.
0
All observers are best with the Ostwald interface, and worst with the Hering one. One of the
0. 0.1 0.2

We define a Figure of Merit for a given interface as most commonly used interfaces, the RGB interface, is not a particularly good one.

FOM = 1 / (precision speed).
Of course, this FOM still depends upon the observer! Evidently, different
observers might be better using different interfaces.
This measure seems reasonable, although it depends upon some arbitrary
definitions, and on the unit of time (we use seconds).
Thursday 19 September 13
These results derive from a first trial in all cases. It is quite likely that observers will tend to
learn an interface, and may become quite good at it, even if the interface is far from
natural. This is why first trial results are most interesting.
Introspectively, observers considered the interface with highest FOM (the Ostwald) as
intuitively the most natural one. Does it most closely approach the generic mental
representation?