Roughly 1 in 12 men and 1 in 200 women have some form of color vision deficiency, which means a design that relies heavily on color alone to convey information may be unclear to a meaningful share of any audience. This tool simulates how an uploaded image would appear under three common types.
Protanopia and deuteranopia both affect red-green distinction (the two most common forms), while tritanopia affects blue-yellow distinction and is much rarer. Each simulation applies a color transformation matrix approximating how that condition alters perceived color.
This is useful for checking whether a chart, infographic, or design still communicates clearly without relying solely on color — a common accessibility oversight that's easy to miss if you have typical color vision yourself.
Because everything runs locally in your browser, results appear instantly and nothing you type or upload is ever sent to a server.
Bookmark this page if you expect to use this tool regularly — it loads fast and behaves the same way every time, with no account needed.
This kind of task shows up constantly in everyday writing, coding, design, and admin work, which is exactly why a dedicated, focused tool saves so much back-and-forth.
A tool that does one job well, without a cluttered interface or unrelated features competing for attention, tends to be faster to use than a heavier all-in-one app.
Frequently asked questions
Is this simulation medically precise?
It's a reasonable visual approximation based on standard color transformation matrices used in accessibility testing, not a clinically precise simulation of any individual's exact vision.
What should I do if my design relies heavily on color?
Add secondary cues like patterns, labels, or icons alongside color coding, so information isn't lost for someone who can't distinguish the specific colors used.