SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians who administer the Farnsworth‐Munsell D‐15 test need to pay attention to the quality and quantity of lighting and the time that they allow for completion of the test, and all repeat attempts need to be included in reports on compliance with color vision standards. PURPOSE: The validity of the Farnsworth‐Munsell D‐15 has been questioned because practice may allow significantly color vision–deficient subjects to pass. In this article, we review the influence of practice and other factors that may affect the performance. These relate to both the design and the administration of the test. METHODS: We review the literature and present some calculations on limitations in the colorimetric design of the test, quantity and quality of lighting, time taken, and repeat attempts. RESULTS: In addition to the review of the literature, color differences and luminance differences under selected sources are calculated, and the increases in luminance clues under some sources and for protanopes are illustrated. CONCLUSIONS: All these factors affect the outcome of the test and need specification and implementation if the test is to be applied consistently and equitably. We recommend the following: practitioners should never rely on a single color vision test regardless of the color vision standard; lighting should be T _cp ′′ 6500 K and R _a > 90; illuminance levels should be between 200 and 300 lux if detection of color vision deficiency is a priority or between 300 and 1000 lux if the need is to test at the level where illuminance has minimal influence on performance; illuminance should be reported; time limits should be set between 1 and 2 minutes; repeat testing (beyond the specified test and one retest) should be carried out only with authorization; and initial and repeated results should be reported. A set of test instructions to assist in the consistent application of the test is provided in the Appendix.

The selection of lens materials for non‐prescription personal protective equipment has been a relatively simple process and has its origins in many studies around the 1970s. The viable materials available at that time were tempered glass, hard resin (n = 1.50) and polycarbonate. The modern spectacle non‐prescription eye protector of choice is inevitably hard coated polycarbonate, which has exemplary impact resistant properties. In the prescription lens area, there is a bewildering array of materials of various refractive indices with a variety of coatings. The selection of an ophthalmic lens has optical and cosmetic considerations ahead of impact resistance. In complying with the Australian/New Zealand standard on prescription eye protection, adequate impact resistance must rate as the foremost requirement, with optical and cosmetic considerations as important but lesser considerations. In this review, the evidence on impact resistance of the available materials is presented, the standards set for testing impact resistance are detailed and some guidance is provided for the selection of prescription eye protection materials.

At the Göttingen meeting of the International Colour Vision Society, I reported on a comparison of the second edition of the American Optical Hardy-Rand-Rittler Pseudoisochromatic plates (AO HRR) with the Richmond Products third edition of the same test and concluded that the chromaticities were exceptionally poorly matched and that the new edition was a “pale imitation of the real thing” (unpublished). This conclusion led to our abandoning a clinical trial. In 2002, Richmond Products has published a fourth edition and, in 2003, Waggoner has published a modified HRR with additional (Ishihara style) plates and the tetartan confusion figures removed. As a precursor to any clinical trial, the colors used in the plates have been measured and comparisons drawn between the four editions. While the two most recent editions much more closely resemble the original AO HRR and the chromaticities are much better aligned on the dichromatic confusion lines, the excitation purities (and therefore the degree of difficulty) of the plates are less well matched in the Richmond Products editions. In addition, there is a significant degree of metamerism in the third edition and Waggoner edition that makes variations in illuminant more critical to performance.