Gamut matters more than accuracy here. If the monitor is skewed blue, or has darker reds, or something like that, the test remains valid. In general, asking for more blue will lead to a bluer pixel.

The exception is when a monitor is already maxed in blue, but that is about the gamut (range) of the monitor, not its accuracy.

I think those colors have been chosen very carefully because I have 0 issues rearranging them on poor quality TFT display of macbook air 11. The seem quite distinct to me.

You don't know what a poor quality TFT display is then ;)

Farnsworth Munsell is based on a subset of sRGB, so unless you're using a cathode ray tube, your eyes, not your screen, will discern the hue.

Cheap (and even not-so-cheap) LCDs can be pretty inaccurate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Munsell_100_hue_tes...

In particular, I suspect the DACs and gamma buffers used to derive the LCD driving voltages may have some non-monotonic effects, which would definitely affect the test --- i.e. if increasing the numerical R, G, or B value actually decreases the corresponding colour intensity, even slightly, of the light emitted.

I did this a few years ago on a work LCD monitor. It was much more difficult than on a U2410 at home, on which it was mostly pretty easy. But even that was more challenging than on a GDM-FW900, on which the colors and the gradient were crystal clear, with no need to do any swapping.

Or the settings of the monitor. I did it in "reader" mode and got a score of 19 struggling as a few boxes looked the same. Switched to "photo" mode and got a score of 0 easily.

Anecdata: I too got a score of 0 on my first try (having never seen a test like this before) using the builtin LCD on my old ThinkPad X61.

I may have leaned around a little to take advantage of the slight vertical color shifting in this particular LCD but that was about it.

Wide gamut ips. 0 on first attempt.

It's not a matter of accuracy, but precision i.e. low delta-E doesn't matter here. Having bad greyscale tracking / non-flat gamma are what would primarily make this difficult but almost any modern screen is pretty good in these areas.

> Alternatively: how good is your monitor's colour accuracy?

Mine is a terrible decade old TN panel with banding on most coloured gradients... I got a perfect score so it doesn't seem to measure that much fidelity.

There were a couple of cases where two cells seemed wrong, no matter the order, so I also suspected the monitor is the culprit.

Also, what's the scale? They say lower is better but how better?

Exactly my thought.

Also, finally some use for my recently purchased monitor with decent color calibration out-of-the-box.

This is probably also extra difficult if you have f.lux or something similar running.

Damn I got 0, but now that I think about it I am pretty sure my monitor is not accurate, things tend to be oversaturated and reddish.

you nailed the color test but failed the reading comprehension test

0 is a perfect score...