OT: What glasses?

Post by Tony Cooper
I wear bifocals for everyday use. I also have a pair of single-vision
"computer glasses" that are set for distance at which I view the
monitor.
The problem is that I have trouble viewing the screen with my bifocals
on, and trouble seeing in general with my computer glasses on, so I
have to switch every time I get on or off the computer.
I have an ophthalmologist appointment coming up, and I'm sure I'll
need new prescriptions so I'll be buying new glasses.
How do y'all handle it if you have similar problems?
Progressive lenses (I've never tried those)? Trifocals?

I had progressives and I hated them. I have three pairs of glasses -
distance, reading and computer - and in practice, almost always wear the
computer glasses, and put up with not seeing a lot of things very well
some of the time.

--
Cheryl

Robert Bannister

2017-03-17 02:58:26 UTC

I've worn multifocal glasses for nearly thirty years and wouldn't have
any other kind. Admittedly, since my cataract operations, most of my
lenses are now clear glasses but the graduated effect is still there.
Although I really only need glasses at all for reading now, sometimes
that middle distance help is handy, and because my glasses are
light-sensitive they are very useful for driving as they are much more
comfortable than any sunglasses I've found.

Having said that, multifocal glasses take about three months to get used
to initially and perhaps longer than that for walking down steps/stairs
without clinging onto the handrail, but that was the only drawback and
that was a long time ago.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

Cheryl

2017-03-17 09:14:07 UTC

Post by Robert Bannister

I've worn multifocal glasses for nearly thirty years and wouldn't have
any other kind. Admittedly, since my cataract operations, most of my
lenses are now clear glasses but the graduated effect is still there.
Although I really only need glasses at all for reading now, sometimes
that middle distance help is handy, and because my glasses are
light-sensitive they are very useful for driving as they are much more
comfortable than any sunglasses I've found.
Having said that, multifocal glasses take about three months to get used
to initially and perhaps longer than that for walking down steps/stairs
without clinging onto the handrail, but that was the only drawback and
that was a long time ago.

I know most people adjust easily to progressives, but I had mine for
about 2-3 years - until I could afford to replace them - and never liked
them. I absolutely hated both the small field of vision and the
transition. Since they were standard types - with only near and distant
options - they were infuriatingly bad for computer use, and I spend most
of my working day and part of the rest of it on the computer. And I
couldn't read small print, or prices on low supermarket shelves, at all.

Even now, with all my spare glasses, I tend to use the computer ones
most of the time, and even go without entirely sometimes, bringing an
object close to my eyes or enlarging and brightening the text. It
surprises me that this works - my eyes are not good when uncorrected -
but it's better than trying progressives again.

--
Cheryl

Pierre Jelenc

2017-03-16 21:39:07 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
How do y'all handle it if you have similar problems?
Progressive lenses (I've never tried those)? Trifocals?

Progressive glasses are really no different from bifocals except that the
transition is not as noticeable to others. I have no experience with
trifocals but was told by a couple of oculists that the field of vision is
too small for use with computer screens. like you I use 2 pairs,
progressive for outdoor use (including reading on the subway) and computer
for indoor (since I don't live in a mansion, the computer glasses are
perfectly fine within my NYC apartment...)

Pierre

--
Pierre Jelenc
The Gigometer www.gigometer.com
The NYC Beer Guide www.nycbeer.org

Whiskers

2017-03-16 23:25:46 UTC

Post by Pierre Jelenc

Post by Tony Cooper
How do y'all handle it if you have similar problems?
Progressive lenses (I've never tried those)? Trifocals?

The middle, middle-distance, segment of my trifocals fits the height of
my laptop screen almost exactly, and exceeds the width. But I have to
convince the optician every time, that I really do want the middle
segment high enough to include my laptop screen without tilting my head
back.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

bill van

2017-03-16 21:47:04 UTC

My last three pairs or so have had progressive lenses. They suit me very
well; I adapted to the change in a few hours after putting on my first
pair. I have heard that a minority of glasses-wearers never get used to
them, so there's a chance you won't like them. But the four or five
people I've talked who bought progressive lenses were very happy with
them.

Ask your ophthalmologist if he/she has an opinion about whether they
will suit you.

--
bill

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2017-03-16 22:09:13 UTC

My last three pairs or so have had progressive lenses. They suit me very
well; I adapted to the change in a few hours after putting on my first
pair. I have heard that a minority of glasses-wearers never get used to
them, so there's a chance you won't like them. But the four or five
people I've talked who bought progressive lenses were very happy with
them.
Ask your ophthalmologist if he/she has an opinion about whether they
will suit you.

Good idea, as I'm seeing my ophthalmologist in a couple of weeks.

I've had progressive lenses for several years (probably at least 15),
but the distance part is almost plain, as I now have no difficulty
seeing distant things without lenses. My dark glasses for driving have
no lenses. I do need glasses now for reading, which I didn't when I was
younger.

The progressive lenses to some getting used to at the beginning, but
now I don't notice them. I had glasses for the computer screen, but I
gave up using them at least ten years ago. I think I keep my head up
without noticing so that I see the screen through the lower part.

--
athel

bill van

2017-03-16 23:01:42 UTC

My dark glasses for driving have no lenses.

How do you get them to go dark?

--
bill

Peter T. Daniels

2017-03-17 03:50:24 UTC

My dark glasses for driving have no lenses.

How do you get them to go dark?

I was wondering rather how he sees through them.

Peter Moylan

2017-03-17 10:08:43 UTC

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

My last three pairs or so have had progressive lenses. They suit me very
well; I adapted to the change in a few hours after putting on my first
pair. I have heard that a minority of glasses-wearers never get used to
them, so there's a chance you won't like them. But the four or five
people I've talked who bought progressive lenses were very happy with
them.
Ask your ophthalmologist if he/she has an opinion about whether they
will suit you.

Good idea, as I'm seeing my ophthalmologist in a couple of weeks.
I've had progressive lenses for several years (probably at least 15),
but the distance part is almost plain, as I now have no difficulty
seeing distant things without lenses. My dark glasses for driving have
no lenses. I do need glasses now for reading, which I didn't when I was
younger.
The progressive lenses to some getting used to at the beginning, but now
I don't notice them. I had glasses for the computer screen, but I gave
up using them at least ten years ago. I think I keep my head up without
noticing so that I see the screen through the lower part.

I too am satisfied with my progressive lenses, which I've had for
perhaps ten years. (Through at least three changes of prescription, I
think.) I should qualify that by saying that these are reading glasses.
I don't use glasses for distant viewing or for driving. That means that
the progression goes only from nearby books to the distance of my
computer screen. I don't even notice the transitions except when I
deliberately do unnatural things, like tilting my head right back while
looking at my computer screen.

Since Tony is now using bifocals, I presume that his progressive glasses
would have to cover a greater range of focal length. That might or might
not make the solution less satisfactory.

One further point: my first pair of progressive glasses were quite
unsuitable for computer use, and I had to go back to get the lenses
changed. That was because the optometrist didn't believe me when I told
him the distance from my head to the computer screen at work, and he had
"corrected" my estimate to what he thought was an appropriate distance.
Once that was fixed, the results were completely acceptable.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2017-03-16 22:36:18 UTC

My last three pairs or so have had progressive lenses. They suit me very
well; I adapted to the change in a few hours after putting on my first
pair. I have heard that a minority of glasses-wearers never get used to
them, so there's a chance you won't like them. But the four or five
people I've talked who bought progressive lenses were very happy with
them.
Ask your ophthalmologist if he/she has an opinion about whether they
will suit you.

That is good advice.

I have progressive lenses ("varifocals" in BrE) in the glasses I have
for normal use. They can certainly be used for looking at a computer
screen. The disadvantage for computer use is that the area that is in
focus is relatively small. It is necessary to move the head around so as
to look at different parts of the screen. With computer glasses the
whole screen is in focus at all times so much of the time only eye
movements are needed to look at different areas of the screen.

So I use the progressive lenses to look at a computer screen if it is
for only a short time, otherwise I put on the computer glasses.

I used progressive lenses for all purposes for years before getting a
pair of computer glasses.

It can take a while to become accustomed to progressive lenses because
you need to tilt the head up or down according to the distance to the
object you wish to look at. I suppose it's like learning to ride a bike
- you learn to make the movements needed to balance the bike and stop it
falling over. The movements become automatic.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Paul Wolff

2017-03-16 22:54:57 UTC

My last three pairs or so have had progressive lenses. They suit me very
well; I adapted to the change in a few hours after putting on my first
pair. I have heard that a minority of glasses-wearers never get used to
them, so there's a chance you won't like them. But the four or five
people I've talked who bought progressive lenses were very happy with
them.
Ask your ophthalmologist if he/she has an opinion about whether they
will suit you.

That is good advice.
I have progressive lenses ("varifocals" in BrE) in the glasses I have
for normal use. They can certainly be used for looking at a computer
screen. The disadvantage for computer use is that the area that is in
focus is relatively small. It is necessary to move the head around so as
to look at different parts of the screen. With computer glasses the
whole screen is in focus at all times so much of the time only eye
movements are needed to look at different areas of the screen.
So I use the progressive lenses to look at a computer screen if it is
for only a short time, otherwise I put on the computer glasses.
I used progressive lenses for all purposes for years before getting a
pair of computer glasses.
It can take a while to become accustomed to progressive lenses because
you need to tilt the head up or down according to the distance to the
object you wish to look at. I suppose it's like learning to ride a bike
- you learn to make the movements needed to balance the bike and stop it
falling over. The movements become automatic.

We all want to share our wisdom here...

I switched to all-purpose varifocals for everyday; then finding that
they had too small a focal zone for the computer screen, I added what
they called an office-zone (or something like that) pair of varifocals
for use at work, where the long range maximum wasn't very far away and
with decent width lenses the sharp zone for the monitor and for reading
books was good; and then added a pair of fixed, single focal length
distance glasses for playing croquet, because judging distances
sufficiently accurately was too variable with, um, varifocals; and then
took advantage of a 'special' offer and bought a second pair of croquet
glasses to the identical prescription, but tinted, so I could switch to
them when the sun came out.

My one key piece of advice arising out of this: make sure your
sunglasses are of a neutral tint if you are going to play croquet, or
otherwise you'll get confused by the ball colours merging. Pink and
white and yellow are all pretty similar through a brown filter.

--
Paul

HVS

2017-03-17 00:24:54 UTC

-snip -

Post by Tony Cooper
Progressive lenses (I've never tried those)? Trifocals?

My wife took to them immediately; I tried them for two or three sets
of new glasses, but was so close to tears with frustration that I
changed to bifocals, which I've never regretted.

ObAUE/pondiality - they're called "varifocals" In East Pondia.

--
Cheers, Harvey
CanE (30 years) & BrE (34 years),
indiscriminately mixed

musika

2017-03-16 22:16:49 UTC

Once I started using varifocals I never looked back!
The only problem is it is much more difficult (if not impossible) to
glance sideways or up and down. You have to move your head more
especially when driving. Walking down steps/stairs is interesting when
you first start using them but I quickly adapted to the disadvantages.
If you go for the varifocal option the more expensive ones have a larger
area of focus.

Here's a bit copied from wikip that's salient.

For those new to progressive lenses, an accommodation period is
often required because the brain needs to learn to adapt to them.[1]
This period varies from a few hours for some individuals up to around
two weeks.[7] During this period, side effects can include headache and
dizziness. It is advised that, when these symptoms set in, the
progressive lenses be removed for a short period and replaced after
symptoms have subsided. Returning to an older prescription or different
type of lens design (bifocal, trifocal) only serves to increase the
adaptation period to the progressive lenses.
Depth perception and distance estimation can be influenced during
the adaptation period.

--
Ray
UK

Robert Bannister

2017-03-17 03:01:37 UTC

Post by musika

Once I started using varifocals I never looked back!
The only problem is it is much more difficult (if not impossible) to
glance sideways or up and down. You have to move your head more
especially when driving. Walking down steps/stairs is interesting when
you first start using them but I quickly adapted to the disadvantages.
If you go for the varifocal option the more expensive ones have a larger
area of focus.
Here's a bit copied from wikip that's salient.
For those new to progressive lenses, an accommodation period is
often required because the brain needs to learn to adapt to them.[1]
This period varies from a few hours for some individuals up to around
two weeks.[7] During this period, side effects can include headache and
dizziness. It is advised that, when these symptoms set in, the
progressive lenses be removed for a short period and replaced after
symptoms have subsided. Returning to an older prescription or different
type of lens design (bifocal, trifocal) only serves to increase the
adaptation period to the progressive lenses.
Depth perception and distance estimation can be influenced during
the adaptation period.

I admit that, with my glasses off, I probably still move my head up to
see things more clearly and from side to side more than other people do.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

Paul Carmichael

2017-03-17 15:38:18 UTC

I admit that, with my glasses off, I probably still move my head up to see things more
clearly and from side to side more than other people do.

You are not alone. People look at me odd when I'm outside without glasses on, waving my
head around to see something close up.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org

Sam Plusnet

2017-03-16 23:48:06 UTC

Anyone who can find a way to de-focus the text shown on a monitor, in a
way that counteracts your defective vision, would make quite a lot of money.

--
Sam Plusnet

Don Phillipson

2017-03-16 20:55:55 UTC

This is normal (unless you decide sitting immobile at the
screen is ultimately damaging, and prefer the "exercise"
of shifting head or body position to look through upper or
lower parts of your bifocal lenses.) It may be a consolation
that new computer lenses will be cheaper than new bifocals.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Paul Carmichael

2017-03-17 15:32:25 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
I wear bifocals for everyday use. I also have a pair of single-vision
"computer glasses" that are set for distance at which I view the
monitor.

Heh. Only one monitor? I have four spread along my desk, all at fifferent distances from me.

Post by Tony Cooper
The problem is that I have trouble viewing the screen with my bifocals
on, and trouble seeing in general with my computer glasses on, so I
have to switch every time I get on or off the computer.
I have an ophthalmologist appointment coming up, and I'm sure I'll
need new prescriptions so I'll be buying new glasses.
How do y'all handle it if you have similar problems?
Progressive lenses (I've never tried those)? Trifocals?

Varifocals are the only way forward. I can't see my feet and wiring ceiling lights can be
a problem, but I have other glasses for that. To see my feet I just look bare-eyed.
They're very big.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org

Janet

2017-03-17 15:35:17 UTC

In article <***@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

I use varifocals, what you call progressive lenses.

One pair of specs for everything, very comfortable from day one,
never any problems. I've always had bespoke lenses, expensive but worth
every penny.

http://www.which.co.uk/reviews/opticians-stores/article/best-and-worst-
opticians-stores/choosing-varifocals

Janet

John Varela

2017-03-17 18:36:26 UTC

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

I have four pairs:

Prescription reading glasses. I use these only at home, for reading
and for the computer. I sit at the computer with the monitor about
the same distance from my eyeballs that I would hold a book. I keep
these glasses on a chain so I can easily flip them off of my nose
and let the chain catch them. I need the chain because I'm
constantly having to remove and replace the glasses whenever I want
to see at any distance over 10 feet or go down the stairs, which
it's dangerous to do with reading glasses on. You probably have a
one-level house in Florida so mightn't need the chain.

Distance-only glasses with Transition prescription lenses. Only for
the golf course. These live in my golf bag. Even so I still can't
see the ball when it's more than 150 yards away. I thought cataract
surgery would cure that but it didn't.

Bifocals for all other times, one pair kept in the car and one more
for backup and when doing yard work. I can't use distance-only
glasses in the car because sometimes I need to check a map or read
an address. Also, if I didn't have bifocals then I would have to
tote reading glasses to read menus and playbills.

I have never considered contacts because the idea of sticking my
finger in my eye appalls me. Besides that, SWMBO used to wear them
and was forever losing the damn things. (Since cataract surgery she
only needs drugstore reading glasses.)

--
John Varela

Tony Cooper

2017-03-17 21:42:30 UTC

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

Prescription reading glasses. I use these only at home, for reading
and for the computer. I sit at the computer with the monitor about
the same distance from my eyeballs that I would hold a book. I keep
these glasses on a chain so I can easily flip them off of my nose
and let the chain catch them. I need the chain because I'm
constantly having to remove and replace the glasses whenever I want
to see at any distance over 10 feet or go down the stairs, which
it's dangerous to do with reading glasses on. You probably have a
one-level house in Florida so mightn't need the chain.
Distance-only glasses with Transition prescription lenses. Only for
the golf course. These live in my golf bag. Even so I still can't
see the ball when it's more than 150 yards away. I thought cataract
surgery would cure that but it didn't.
Bifocals for all other times, one pair kept in the car and one more
for backup and when doing yard work. I can't use distance-only
glasses in the car because sometimes I need to check a map or read
an address. Also, if I didn't have bifocals then I would have to
tote reading glasses to read menus and playbills.
I have never considered contacts because the idea of sticking my
finger in my eye appalls me. Besides that, SWMBO used to wear them
and was forever losing the damn things. (Since cataract surgery she
only needs drugstore reading glasses.)

I posted my question in this newsgroup and a photography newsgroup.
Varilux/progressive lenses lose out to a separate pair of
single-distance computer glasses.

Varilux/progressive have an edge in this group, but those who do a lot
of detail work with Adobe Photoshop find them difficult to work with
and require a lot of head position adjustment.

So, I'll stick with the bifocals and computer glasses. I would
probably have gone that route without asking, but it's interesting to
hear how others handle the problem. And, based on the input in both
groups, I'm not alone with the problems I stated.

The one thing I'll do differently with the new glasses is to get the
computer glasses in a frame that is totally different from my bifocal
frame. I've picked up the wrong pair from the desk too many times.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Janet

2017-03-18 12:28:41 UTC

In article <***@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

Post by Tony Cooper
I posted my question in this newsgroup and a photography newsgroup.
Varilux/progressive lenses lose out to a separate pair of
single-distance computer glasses.
Varilux/progressive have an edge in this group, but those who do a lot
of detail work with Adobe Photoshop find them difficult to work with
and require a lot of head position adjustment.

Varilux is just a brand name. They manufacture a range of varifocal
lenses starting at very cheap bottom of the market stocked by highstreet
chains and supermarket opticians, for cheap offers.

If someone tells you they get a poor result from their Varilux
lenses, you need to know which end of the Varilux brand price range they
wear.

Other brands cost more and have a better reputation. I recommend
Zeiss.

Janet.

Tony Cooper

2017-03-18 16:13:57 UTC

Post by Janet
@gmail.com says...

Varilux is just a brand name. They manufacture a range of varifocal
lenses starting at very cheap bottom of the market stocked by highstreet
chains and supermarket opticians, for cheap offers.
If someone tells you they get a poor result from their Varilux
lenses, you need to know which end of the Varilux brand price range they
wear.
Other brands cost more and have a better reputation. I recommend
Zeiss.

I understand that Verilux is a brand name. That brand is advertised
and sold in the US.

In my original post I used "progressive" as a generic for that type of
lens, but a few posters said something to the effect of "They are
called Verilux lenses" over there.

To your point, though, the objections I've seen to progressive lenses
in both newsgroups are about the amount of time needed to adjust to
them, the too-narrow band for certain distances, and the movements
required to see clearly at certain distances. I don't think these
comments have to do with the quality of the lens.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Janet

2017-03-18 17:05:02 UTC

In article <***@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

Post by Janet
@gmail.com says...

Varilux is just a brand name. They manufacture a range of varifocal
lenses starting at very cheap bottom of the market stocked by highstreet
chains and supermarket opticians, for cheap offers.
If someone tells you they get a poor result from their Varilux
lenses, you need to know which end of the Varilux brand price range they
wear.
Other brands cost more and have a better reputation. I recommend
Zeiss.

I understand that Verilux is a brand name. That brand is advertised
and sold in the US.
In my original post I used "progressive" as a generic for that type of
lens, but a few posters said something to the effect of "They are
called Verilux lenses" over there.
To your point, though, the objections I've seen to progressive lenses
in both newsgroups are about the amount of time needed to adjust to
them, the too-narrow band for certain distances, and the movements
required to see clearly at certain distances. I don't think these
comments have to do with the quality of the lens.

I've never had any of those problems with Zeiss varifocal lenses made
to measure.

I know people who do have those problems. When comparing notes, they
had bought much cheaper varifocal lenses from chains that offer BOGOF. I
also reckon that many unsuccessful varifocal wearers, out of vanity, or
lack of advice, chose the wrong frame to put them in.

It's important to pick a frame that provides the right lens shape and
depth to properly accommodate the individual's varifocal prescription,
and supports the lenses on that person's nasal bridge and ears, in the
correct position for their pupils.

Janet.

Tony Cooper

2017-03-18 19:03:38 UTC

Post by Janet
@gmail.com says...

Post by Janet
@gmail.com says...

Varilux is just a brand name. They manufacture a range of varifocal
lenses starting at very cheap bottom of the market stocked by highstreet
chains and supermarket opticians, for cheap offers.
If someone tells you they get a poor result from their Varilux
lenses, you need to know which end of the Varilux brand price range they
wear.
Other brands cost more and have a better reputation. I recommend
Zeiss.

I understand that Verilux is a brand name. That brand is advertised
and sold in the US.
In my original post I used "progressive" as a generic for that type of
lens, but a few posters said something to the effect of "They are
called Verilux lenses" over there.
To your point, though, the objections I've seen to progressive lenses
in both newsgroups are about the amount of time needed to adjust to
them, the too-narrow band for certain distances, and the movements
required to see clearly at certain distances. I don't think these
comments have to do with the quality of the lens.

I've never had any of those problems with Zeiss varifocal lenses made
to measure.

None of the respondents made any comment that I was sure indicated the
brand or maker of the lenses. While I used "progressives" as a
generic, I got the impression that those who used "Varilux" are using
that word as a generic, too. I'm not sure that everyone who buys
glasses knows the brand of the lens.

I would lay the problem of a too-narrow band or the position of the
bands to the optician rather than the brand. When I took my last
prescription for bifocals to the optician, she marked the level where
the prescription was to change on a set of plain glass lenses and used
that mark for my prescription. If that mark is not placed correctly,
there's going to be head movement required.

Post by Janet
I know people who do have those problems. When comparing notes, they
had bought much cheaper varifocal lenses from chains that offer BOGOF. I
also reckon that many unsuccessful varifocal wearers, out of vanity, or
lack of advice, chose the wrong frame to put them in.
It's important to pick a frame that provides the right lens shape and
depth to properly accommodate the individual's varifocal prescription,
and supports the lenses on that person's nasal bridge and ears, in the
correct position for their pupils.

I've been wearing "string" glasses for decades. The frame is just
over the top part of the lens.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Peter Moylan

2017-03-19 03:30:03 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
To your point, though, the objections I've seen to progressive lenses
in both newsgroups are about the amount of time needed to adjust to
them, the too-narrow band for certain distances, and the movements
required to see clearly at certain distances. I don't think these
comments have to do with the quality of the lens.

I've never tried bifocals, but I suspect that I would take a lot longer
to adjust to those than to progressive lenses. The latter don't have
that disconcerting transition zone.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

John Varela

2017-03-19 19:55:41 UTC

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 03:30:03 UTC, Peter Moylan

I've never tried bifocals, but I suspect that I would take a lot longer
to adjust to those than to progressive lenses. The latter don't have
that disconcerting transition zone.

I never notice the boundary between lenses except when trying to
read something like a label on a museum exhibit that is too far for
the reading lens and too close for the distance lens. Please no one
suggest trifocals; this doesn't happen often enough to be worth the
bother.

--
John Varela

Whiskers

2017-03-19 22:12:52 UTC

Post by John Varela
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 03:30:03 UTC, Peter Moylan

I've never tried bifocals, but I suspect that I would take a lot longer
to adjust to those than to progressive lenses. The latter don't have
that disconcerting transition zone.

I find that even trifocals aren't too useful in that situation. A
powerful hand lamp and telescope might work. (Whose idea was it to
print those things in pale grey ink on pale grey card and them mount
them at waist height, or ten feet off the floor, in shadow?)

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Jerry Friedman

2017-03-20 15:03:13 UTC

Post by John Varela
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 03:30:03 UTC, Peter Moylan

I've never tried bifocals, but I suspect that I would take a lot longer
to adjust to those than to progressive lenses. The latter don't have
that disconcerting transition zone.

The reason for the shadow may be that light is damaging to some works of
art, and to help your eyes adjust to the low light on the art, the light
elsewhere in the room has to be even lower. I just learned that at a
photography exhibition, where the labels were at least in black on white
at a reasonable human eye level.

--
Jerry Friedman

Whiskers

2017-03-20 17:26:37 UTC

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by John Varela
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 03:30:03 UTC, Peter Moylan

I've never tried bifocals, but I suspect that I would take a lot longer
to adjust to those than to progressive lenses. The latter don't have
that disconcerting transition zone.

If you know that light levels are going to be low, surely it would be
logical to make all signs and notices as clear as possible. The colours
of a label on the wall next to it, aren't going to damage the fabric of
any object (but people leaning in close to try to read the label might
easily damage the exhibit - particularly if there's a trip-wire at ankle
height as well).

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Theodore Heise

2017-03-18 17:18:36 UTC

On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:42:30 -0400,

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
I wear bifocals for everyday use. I also have a pair of
single-vision "computer glasses" that are set for distance at
which I view the monitor.
The problem is that I have trouble viewing the screen with my
bifocals on, and trouble seeing in general with my computer
glasses on, so I have to switch every time I get on or off
the computer.
I have an ophthalmologist appointment coming up, and I'm sure
I'll need new prescriptions so I'll be buying new glasses.
How do y'all handle it if you have similar problems?
Progressive lenses (I've never tried those)? Trifocals?

Prescription reading glasses.
Distance-only glasses with Transition prescription lenses.
Bifocals for all other times

Thanks for summarizing the general sentiments of the two groups;
it seems an interesting divide.

Post by Tony Cooper
So, I'll stick with the bifocals and computer glasses. I would
probably have gone that route without asking, but it's
interesting to hear how others handle the problem. And, based
on the input in both groups, I'm not alone with the problems I
stated.

Sounds to like a good plan. Peter Moylan made a good point, that
it seems others have aligned with (though not always explicitly
so). Specifically, that it matter whether you need correction for
two distances or three.

I've always been nearsighted--got my first pair of glasses at
about age 5, and probably needed them sooner. Sometime in my
early forties I started needing some near correction, and sadly
went to bifocals. I went for the type with lines, and it took me
a year before I was at peace with them. Not sure I ever was
comfortable with them.

In my mid fifties (specifically, after getting a new pair of
bifocals with updated corrections), I found I could no longer see
the computer screen well enough. I ended up going to progressive
lenses, but was still not happpy with them after about five years
of trying. Much of this was the difficulty in finding the right
tilt of my head for the computer, but the narrower width of
correction also bothered me.

My latest pair has trifocal lenses, and after a year or so, I'm
still not sure I can stick with them. The middle portion has
about the right focal length, but is probably not quite tall
enough--it doesn't quite show my whole computer display, so rather
than tilt my head up and down as I read, I tend to just get closer
and use the bottom portion.

I'm not sure where I'll go next, but am now seriously considering
the bifocals and (intermediate distance) reading glasses.

As an aside, I do best for fine reading to just take off my
glasses entirely and hold the reading material quite close.

--
Ted Heise <***@panix.com> Bloomington, IN, USA

Robert Bannister

2017-03-19 00:30:40 UTC

Post by Theodore Heise
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:42:30 -0400,

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
I wear bifocals for everyday use. I also have a pair of
single-vision "computer glasses" that are set for distance at
which I view the monitor.
The problem is that I have trouble viewing the screen with my
bifocals on, and trouble seeing in general with my computer
glasses on, so I have to switch every time I get on or off
the computer.
I have an ophthalmologist appointment coming up, and I'm sure
I'll need new prescriptions so I'll be buying new glasses.
How do y'all handle it if you have similar problems?
Progressive lenses (I've never tried those)? Trifocals?

Prescription reading glasses.
Distance-only glasses with Transition prescription lenses.
Bifocals for all other times

Thanks for summarizing the general sentiments of the two groups;
it seems an interesting divide.

Sounds to like a good plan. Peter Moylan made a good point, that
it seems others have aligned with (though not always explicitly
so). Specifically, that it matter whether you need correction for
two distances or three.
I've always been nearsighted--got my first pair of glasses at
about age 5, and probably needed them sooner. Sometime in my
early forties I started needing some near correction, and sadly
went to bifocals. I went for the type with lines, and it took me
a year before I was at peace with them. Not sure I ever was
comfortable with them.
In my mid fifties (specifically, after getting a new pair of
bifocals with updated corrections), I found I could no longer see
the computer screen well enough. I ended up going to progressive
lenses, but was still not happpy with them after about five years
of trying. Much of this was the difficulty in finding the right
tilt of my head for the computer, but the narrower width of
correction also bothered me.
My latest pair has trifocal lenses, and after a year or so, I'm
still not sure I can stick with them. The middle portion has
about the right focal length, but is probably not quite tall
enough--it doesn't quite show my whole computer display, so rather
than tilt my head up and down as I read, I tend to just get closer
and use the bottom portion.
I'm not sure where I'll go next, but am now seriously considering
the bifocals and (intermediate distance) reading glasses.
As an aside, I do best for fine reading to just take off my
glasses entirely and hold the reading material quite close.

The main reason I went for multifocals (the West Australian word:
bifocals, trifocals > multifocals - it seems a natural progression) was
because I was a teacher. I realised I was regularly needing to look at a
text book, look at the whiteboard and look at the boy at the back of the
class. I was constantly taking my glasses off and putting them back on,
and then when my vision deteriorated a bit more, taking one pair off and
putting another pair on.
I considered bifocals, but realised there were several distances I
needed to look at. I imagine that if the difference between your reading
lenses and your distance lenses is very great, that multifocals might
not work very well, but they certainly have for me.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

John Varela

2017-03-17 18:49:38 UTC

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

Most of the responders seem to favor progressive/varifocal lenses.
This moves me to ask: is there any advantage to p/v lenses over
bifocals, other than the vanity benefit of concealing the fact that
you need bifocals?

--
John Varela

Paul Wolff

2017-03-17 20:13:18 UTC

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

They imply that everything will be in focus, provided that you look
through the right part of the lens. In my experience, looking for the
right part of the lens to look at the object through can be a bit
irritating; but recalling the price I paid, I realise that what I really
ought to focus on is the benefit when I have found it.

--
Paul

Whiskers

2017-03-17 20:14:53 UTC

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

They're what opticians seem to be pushing, so it's easy to find a
supplier. In principle you also get some sweet spot for focus at /any/
distance, not just at the two distances for bifocals or three distances
for trifocals, so if your eyes are really bad at 'accommodation' for
distance then the varifocals give you a better chance of being able to
focus on what you're looking at. (On the other hand, if your eyes don't
have to adjust for distance at all, could you lose whatever
'accommodation' ability you still have? Worth asking an expert about
that perhaps).

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Janet

2017-03-18 11:53:30 UTC

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

They're what opticians seem to be pushing, so it's easy to find a
supplier.

I have never met an optician who wears bifocals.

Janet.

Whiskers

2017-03-18 13:56:23 UTC

Post by Janet

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

They're what opticians seem to be pushing, so it's easy to find a
supplier.

I have never met an optician who wears bifocals.
Janet.

Most of the ones I've met professionally in recent years have been young
and not worn specs at all, although one did have a pair of 'readers' on
a ribbon. But if your employer or a supplier gives you an incentive
to use the product they most want to shift, that could influence your
choice.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Sam Plusnet

2017-03-18 20:21:02 UTC

Post by Janet
I have never met an optician who wears bifocals.
Janet.

My optician is a large national chain and their local branch seems
filled with dozens of young assistants[1], almost all seem to wear glasses.
I suspect that few of them actually need those glasses.

[1] The two places I visit which seem to be staffed by scores of people
are my local Pharmacy (Chemist in BrE) and the Optician. The profit
margin must be quite large to support all those employees.

--
Sam Plusnet

John Varela

2017-03-18 22:48:37 UTC

Post by Janet

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

They're what opticians seem to be pushing, so it's easy to find a
supplier.

I have never met an optician who wears bifocals.

They are in the business of selling lenses so of course they will
try to sell you upmarket. I am happy with my bifocals and
distance-only from Costco. I do go to a local optician for my
reading lenses. I wear reading lenses that are as big as any
bifocal, and have had recurrent problems with the thick, heavy
short-focus lenses popping out of the frames. The opticians sell a
better class of frames that are flexible and I have never had a lens
fall out of them.

--
John Varela

John Varela

2017-03-18 22:44:43 UTC

On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 20:14:53 UTC, Whiskers

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

Once you've had cataract surgery there is no accommodation.

--
John Varela

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2017-03-17 21:02:00 UTC

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

I use progressive/varifocal lenses but I have never used bifocals so I
can't make a comparison.

I started with single focus glasses, a new prescription every year of
two, and then when they were not suitable I got varifocals (on the
advice of my optician).

I imagine that the suitability of bifocals versus varifocals would
depend on how great a difference there is between the two areas of a
bifocal lens and therefore how well things at intermediate distances can
be seen through each area.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

occam

2017-03-18 08:26:47 UTC

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

I use progressive/varifocal lenses but I have never used bifocals so I
can't make a comparison.
I started with single focus glasses, a new prescription every year of
two, and then when they were not suitable I got varifocals (on the
advice of my optician).
I imagine that the suitability of bifocals versus varifocals would
depend on how great a difference there is between the two areas of a
bifocal lens and therefore how well things at intermediate distances can
be seen through each area.

Hmm. During my most recent visit to the optician, my simple request was
- I need my glasses to have BOTH my screen and keyboard in focus.
Currently when I shift my attention from my screen to keyboard, one (or
the other) is out of focus. She said it did not merit a 'progressive' or
bifocal solution, as the measured differences were small. So, for now I
distance myself from the keyboard slightly every time I type. My
justification is this gives me a better perspective on things I write.
Doesn't always work ;-).

John Varela

2017-03-18 23:08:23 UTC

Post by occam

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

I use progressive/varifocal lenses but I have never used bifocals so I
can't make a comparison.
I started with single focus glasses, a new prescription every year of
two, and then when they were not suitable I got varifocals (on the
advice of my optician).
I imagine that the suitability of bifocals versus varifocals would
depend on how great a difference there is between the two areas of a
bifocal lens and therefore how well things at intermediate distances can
be seen through each area.

I don't understand the problem. I just measured and, sitting at the
keyboard as I normally do, the tip of my nose is just 16 inches from
the center of my monitor and 18 inches from the letter u on my
keyboard. The lenses are big enough that the entire 27-inch monitor
is visible within the frames.

The monitor is 2560 x 1440 pixels (about 110 ppi) and with a slight
turn of the head I can resolve individual pixels almost to the edges
of the screen. All of this with reading glasses and no focal
adjustment from my eyes because I have had cataract surgery.

--
John Varela

occam

2017-03-19 08:43:13 UTC

Post by occam

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:46:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

I use progressive/varifocal lenses but I have never used bifocals so I
can't make a comparison.
I started with single focus glasses, a new prescription every year of
two, and then when they were not suitable I got varifocals (on the
advice of my optician).
I imagine that the suitability of bifocals versus varifocals would
depend on how great a difference there is between the two areas of a
bifocal lens and therefore how well things at intermediate distances can
be seen through each area.

I sit further back from my screen. My keyboard is the same distance as
you describe. The 8-12 inches or so difference gives rise to the
problem. The problem started recently, following a course of antibiotics
which is clearly affecting my eyes. I am hoping it will go away.

Post by John Varela
The monitor is 2560 x 1440 pixels (about 110 ppi) and with a slight
turn of the head I can resolve individual pixels almost to the edges
of the screen. All of this with reading glasses and no focal
adjustment from my eyes because I have had cataract surgery.

Hank

2017-03-19 18:09:15 UTC

Post by occam
Hmm. During my most recent visit to the optician, my simple request was
- I need my glasses to have BOTH my screen and keyboard in focus.
Currently when I shift my attention from my screen to keyboard, one (or
the other) is out of focus. She said it did not merit a 'progressive' or
bifocal solution, as the measured differences were small. So, for now I
distance myself from the keyboard slightly every time I type. My
justification is this gives me a better perspective on things I write.
Doesn't always work ;-).

I don't understand the problem. I just measured and, sitting at the
keyboard as I normally do, the tip of my nose is just 16 inches from
the center of my monitor and 18 inches from the letter u on my
keyboard. The lenses are big enough that the entire 27-inch monitor
is visible within the frames.
The monitor is 2560 x 1440 pixels (about 110 ppi) and with a slight
turn of the head I can resolve individual pixels almost to the edges
of the screen. All of this with reading glasses and no focal
adjustment from my eyes because I have had cataract surgery.

I think you are sitting unusually close to the monitor if your viewing
distance is only 18 inches.

For reference, my viewing distance is 24-26 inches between the monitor
face and my eye pupil. For reading books, the distance is about 18
inches. My prescription "add" value for reading glasses is 2.25
diopters. For the computer, I use 1.75. Lenses come in quarter diopter
increments at those values, but local "grocery store" glasses shift to a
half diopter at 2.0---next value is 2.5.

Talking with others, including the two local OD's who've given me
examinations, and the ophthalmologist who did the cataract surgery, it
appears that 18 inches for reading, and a 33% increase for desktop
computers is fairly normal. Reducing the "add" prescription value by
around 25% for computer glasses looks to be about the "right number."

My current monitors are Sun 24.1 inch LCD's, 1920 x 1080 (yes 16:10),
which replaced 17 and 20 inch CRT monitors, which I was using when I
started getting actual numbers. My keyboards are 6-8 inches closer,
but I have no trouble reading the letters on them with 25% derating in
the correction. I learned to touch-type as a teenager, so don't need to
look at the keyboard most of the time.

I do not have a notebook computer, nor a "smartphone," and do not use a
"kindle" book reader.

The numbers I developed for my use were long before I had cataract
surgery. However, they did not change after I had it.

Hank

Rich Ulrich

2017-03-20 01:14:56 UTC

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:09:15 -0000 (UTC),

Your monitor hangs over the middle of your keyboard. Obviously
not a laptop or notebook, which is what I have. That 16 inches seems
rather close for a 27 inch monitor -- that makes a wider angle than I
would want.

My viewing distance is about 19 inches. With my notebook, the
space bar is a convenient distance to reach without stretching, and
I peer over the top of my bifocles while leaning forward.
Comfortable.

I read books at about 12 inches. If it did not feel like an
inconvenience of being farsighted, I could hold books at
18 inches and read them without glasses.

--
Rich Ulrich

Tony Cooper

2017-03-20 05:01:02 UTC

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:14:56 -0400, Rich Ulrich

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:09:15 -0000 (UTC),

I use a desktop computer. My primary wide-screen monitor is 24" from
my eyes and my second monitor is 38" from my eyes. I do lean forward
to view some things on the second monitor, but I'll drag whatever I'm
looking at over to the primary monitor if it's more than something
like my open Gmail account or the Adobe palettes.

My keyboard is in front, and below, my primary monitor but I only look
at it when I'm entering one of those passwords that requires 8 letters
including at least one capital letter, one number, and one symbol.

I have a laptop, but I don't use it very much and - when I do - it's
just used a short time when I'm away from home and need access to
Google or my Cloud files.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Peter Moylan

2017-03-20 13:29:43 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
My keyboard is in front, and below, my primary monitor but I only look
at it when I'm entering one of those passwords that requires 8 letters
including at least one capital letter, one number, and one symbol.

Ah, yes, that "secure" rule that forces people to keep their passwords
taped inside the desk drawer. The people who design password rules
should really step back and look at the unintended consequences of their
decisions. They're making the system less secure.

I use LastPass to keep a copy of all the passwords that I can't possibly
remember, but that only takes care of passwords needed in a web browser.

On this topic, does anyone know how to configure Windows 10 to not
require a password when it wakes up from a sleep? The sleep is usually
because I don't shut down my laptop overnight, because it takes forever
to start up again. Why is Windows 10 so painfully slow to boot up, or to
wake up from hibernating, compared with something like eCS version 2.1?
We already know that Windows is slow, but why does it get slower with
every update?

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Peter T. Daniels

2017-03-20 13:46:51 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
On this topic, does anyone know how to configure Windows 10 to not
require a password when it wakes up from a sleep? The sleep is usually
because I don't shut down my laptop overnight, because it takes forever
to start up again. Why is Windows 10 so painfully slow to boot up, or to
wake up from hibernating, compared with something like eCS version 2.1?
We already know that Windows is slow, but why does it get slower with
every update?

That would be useful -- but I find Windows 10 opens a lot faster than
Windows 7, because it's on a newer faster laptop.

Unfortunately I can't use it because it can't handle some of the exotic
fonts I need every day (never mind that Word2013 can't use the customized
Word2007 Bibliography Style it took me days to create originally and has
been tweaked again and again).

Peter Moylan

2017-03-20 15:59:46 UTC

That would be useful -- but I find Windows 10 opens a lot faster than
Windows 7, because it's on a newer faster laptop.

Yes, and that is what Microsoft relies on. Wirth's law says that the
software is getting slower faster than the hardware is getting faster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law
(the whole article is worth reading.) Because people -- especially
Windows users -- keep getting pushed into buying newer hardware, they
have the impression of gradually increasing speed. But consider this:
what would happen if you tried to run Windows 10 on a computer that you
bought in the year 2000?

My own desktop computer is rather old, but it runs faster than most
people's computers because it runs eCS (a successor to OS/2) rather than
Windows. It boots up quickly because it doesn't have all the pointless
bells and whistles that Windows has. Although I'm not a Linux user,
usually, I have noticed that Linux is also high-speed by Windows
standards. Both OS/2 and Linux have chosen to take advantage of the
faster hardware. Microsoft has, instead, chosen to add even more bells
and whistles, to slow down the machine.

Beside my main desk I have a second desk holding a laptop computer. That
computer, thanks to deals between Microsoft and a few other vendors, can
only run Windows. It is, admittedly, the only computer I have that can
run YouTube, Spider Solitaire, and Finale (a music editing program), and
I use it for those purposes. Most of the time, though, it sits there
doing nothing, because with the Windows 10 operating system it is
singularly useless for real computing applications.

The world is, I think, dividing between those who want to use computers
for serious computations and those who see them as toys. Much as I hate
to say it, I think Microsoft made a commercially defensible decision
when it decided to concentrate on the "toy" market.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Lanarcam

2017-03-20 16:21:20 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
The world is, I think, dividing between those who want to use computers
for serious computations and those who see them as toys. Much as I hate
to say it, I think Microsoft made a commercially defensible decision
when it decided to concentrate on the "toy" market.

I don't disagree with you but there are a (very big) lot of people
for whom the computer is an entertainment device and that's where
the money lies.

Phone companies or radio equipment sellers wouldn't have made
their fortune if they had had only in mind those with professional
electronic skills.

Users have also the right or sometimes the obligation to benefit
from the advances in technology.

David Kleinecke

2017-03-20 17:12:44 UTC

I don't disagree with you but there are a (very big) lot of people
for whom the computer is an entertainment device and that's where
the money lies.
Phone companies or radio equipment sellers wouldn't have made
their fortune if they had had only in mind those with professional
electronic skills.
Users have also the right or sometimes the obligation to benefit
from the advances in technology.

It depends on what you mean by entertainment. And what you mean
by computer. To me an iPhone is a computer. Most people use a
computer as a general purpose device rather than to make
computations. I have seen a tablet used in a very sensible way
to enter information while walking around.

I mostly use my (desktop) computer as a device. I write texts and
read books (via Scribd). I watch YouTube. I would dearly love to
be able to write immediately usable code - but I can't. If there
is a better way to write C code than using Gnu C and a terminal I
am unaware of it (I know about IDE's like Geany but they are only
wrappers around Gnu C).

I am drifting off into a rant. I will here.

Peter T. Daniels

2017-03-20 18:31:02 UTC

I don't disagree with you but there are a (very big) lot of people
for whom the computer is an entertainment device and that's where
the money lies.
Phone companies or radio equipment sellers wouldn't have made
their fortune if they had had only in mind those with professional
electronic skills.
Users have also the right or sometimes the obligation to benefit
from the advances in technology.

On the hospital shows, everyone is always staring at tablets displaying X-rays,
MRIs, etc. No more sticking the films up on the light-wall. Presumably that
reflects the reality of a few years ago when the pilots were made.

Post by David Kleinecke
I mostly use my (desktop) computer as a device. I write texts and
read books (via Scribd). I watch YouTube. I would dearly love to
be able to write immediately usable code - but I can't. If there
is a better way to write C code than using Gnu C and a terminal I
am unaware of it (I know about IDE's like Geany but they are only
wrappers around Gnu C).
I am drifting off into a rant. I will here.

Please do.

Tony Cooper

2017-03-20 19:05:00 UTC

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:31:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

I don't disagree with you but there are a (very big) lot of people
for whom the computer is an entertainment device and that's where
the money lies.
Phone companies or radio equipment sellers wouldn't have made
their fortune if they had had only in mind those with professional
electronic skills.
Users have also the right or sometimes the obligation to benefit
from the advances in technology.

This may shock you, but real life is often different from what is
shown on television shows. One grandson was taken to the hospital
last week with a suspected dislocated shoulder. The ER doctor snapped
the film up on a light box for us to see. The film was given to his
mother to take home in case she wanted to provide it to his regular
physician.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Peter T. Daniels

2017-03-20 19:28:11 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:31:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

I don't disagree with you but there are a (very big) lot of people
for whom the computer is an entertainment device and that's where
the money lies.
Phone companies or radio equipment sellers wouldn't have made
their fortune if they had had only in mind those with professional
electronic skills.
Users have also the right or sometimes the obligation to benefit
from the advances in technology.

Well, we can expect Florida hospitals to be behind the depictions of those in
L.A., San Antonio, and Chicago.

The ones with tablets can presumably send files of the images to the Primary
Care Physician, who is supposed to be the clearinghouse for all patient
information.

When I go to the nephrologist next month, he'll have in his had the bloodwork
done a few days before through my PCP's facility. No longer do I need to bring
him a printout.

Tony Cooper

2017-03-20 21:36:23 UTC

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:28:11 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:31:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

I don't disagree with you but there are a (very big) lot of people
for whom the computer is an entertainment device and that's where
the money lies.
Phone companies or radio equipment sellers wouldn't have made
their fortune if they had had only in mind those with professional
electronic skills.
Users have also the right or sometimes the obligation to benefit
from the advances in technology.

Well, we can expect Florida hospitals to be behind the depictions of those in
L.A., San Antonio, and Chicago.

Yes, but our movie/tv production lots are as up-to-date as the others.
Our police departments can't enlarge and make out faces and license
plates on photographs where that information is not determinable, but
our movie/tv production studios are fully capable of it. We can be
pretend CSI, too.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
The ones with tablets can presumably send files of the images to the Primary
Care Physician, who is supposed to be the clearinghouse for all patient
information.

Having the film sheet, and showing the film showing, do not mean that
the image is not retained electronically and able to be sent
electronically. It simply provides a larger viewing area - about 1:1
- without scrolling. Also, several film sheets - of images taken from
different angles - are snapped up on the light box in a row so the
physician can easily glance from view to view.

It's like taking a photograph with my iPhone and transmitting it to
another iPhone compared to printing out that image on my printer. The
image transmitted is bounded by the size of the phone screen and the
viewer is forced to scroll or enlarge to see detail. The viewer can
only see one image at a time. I can print that image up to 8" x 10"
and put several printed images in a row for comparison.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
When I go to the nephrologist next month, he'll have in his had the bloodwork
done a few days before through my PCP's facility. No longer do I need to bring
him a printout.

The blood lab I use has been doing that here for decades. I have a
electronic copy of all blood work sent to both my PCP and
cardiologist. I have to ask the physician for a printout.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Katy Jennison

2017-03-20 21:46:43 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:31:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels
On the hospital shows, everyone is always staring at tablets displaying X-rays,
MRIs, etc. No more sticking the films up on the light-wall. Presumably that
reflects the reality of a few years ago when the pilots were made.

This reminds me of the way the people servicing my car send me a video
of the inspection of the underneath of it. This is sent via a text and
also via an email, so I get it while I'm waiting with a cup of coffee,
before they even come in and say it's done, and present me with the bill.

--
Katy Jennison

RH Draney

2017-03-20 21:46:34 UTC

My chiropractor schleps a laptop from room to room that's larger than
the one I'm using right now...mostly she takes notes on patients'
symptoms....

At the front desk, the receptionist uses an old-fashioned desktop
computer for scheduling and billing...I doubt the practice will ever
graduate to tablets....r

Peter T. Daniels

2017-03-20 18:27:41 UTC

That would be useful -- but I find Windows 10 opens a lot faster than
Windows 7, because it's on a newer faster laptop.

I have the impression that older hardware can't accommodate newer software --
it does work in reverse: I had a very good Scrabble game but found another
one when I moved from desktop to laptop. It plays lousily and doesn't even
include a glossary for the Scrabble-only "words" it uses.

Then I found the CD for the old one, and the laptop told me it can't run an
8-bit program.

Post by Peter Moylan
My own desktop computer is rather old, but it runs faster than most
people's computers because it runs eCS (a successor to OS/2) rather than
Windows. It boots up quickly because it doesn't have all the pointless

Are they? Presumably each one has some users that appreciate it.

Post by Peter Moylan
bells and whistles that Windows has. Although I'm not a Linux user,
usually, I have noticed that Linux is also high-speed by Windows
standards. Both OS/2 and Linux have chosen to take advantage of the
faster hardware. Microsoft has, instead, chosen to add even more bells
and whistles, to slow down the machine.

I'm very happy that MSWord added the Bibliography Tool in Office2007. It's
not as well-designed or versatile as Papyrus was, which ran on Mac OS7, but when
OSX came out, the developer announced it would be too hard to port it over
and simply made it available free to anyone who hadn't upgraded. Like
many Mac developers, he refused to adapt it for Windows and so probably lost
a lot of sales and income.

Post by Peter Moylan
Beside my main desk I have a second desk holding a laptop computer. That
computer, thanks to deals between Microsoft and a few other vendors, can
only run Windows. It is, admittedly, the only computer I have that can
run YouTube, Spider Solitaire, and Finale (a music editing program), and
I use it for those purposes. Most of the time, though, it sits there
doing nothing, because with the Windows 10 operating system it is
singularly useless for real computing applications.

Too bad you can't back up to Windows 7.

Post by Peter Moylan
The world is, I think, dividing between those who want to use computers
for serious computations and those who see them as toys.

They're not for "computations." They're there to make whatever work one
has to do easier, and also to communicate with the world.

Post by Peter Moylan
Much as I hate
to say it, I think Microsoft made a commercially defensible decision
when it decided to concentrate on the "toy" market.

I wonder where you'd be without the "toys" that produce the books you read,
or the images you look at, or the international monetary system that keeps
track of your wealth (or is that "computations").

Tony Cooper

2017-03-20 14:34:43 UTC

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:29:43 +1100, Peter Moylan

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/how-to/windows/how-remove-password-login-from-windows-10-3637669/

My desktop (Windows 10) does not require a login when awakened from
sleep, but does require one when re-started after it has been powered
down. My laptop (Windows 10) does not require a password in either
instance.

Post by Peter Moylan
The sleep is usually
because I don't shut down my laptop overnight, because it takes forever
to start up again. Why is Windows 10 so painfully slow to boot up, or to
wake up from hibernating, compared with something like eCS version 2.1?
We already know that Windows is slow, but why does it get slower with
every update?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Robert Bannister

2017-03-21 00:41:50 UTC

The IT people who insisted we changed our password every month and
didn't use a password that was even similar to one we had used in the
previous 2 years, found it hard to understand why almost all of us had
Post-it notes stuck to our monitors. Of course, back then, there was no
such thing as LastPass or even DropBox.

Post by Peter Moylan
I use LastPass to keep a copy of all the passwords that I can't possibly
remember, but that only takes care of passwords needed in a web browser.
On this topic, does anyone know how to configure Windows 10 to not
require a password when it wakes up from a sleep? The sleep is usually
because I don't shut down my laptop overnight, because it takes forever
to start up again. Why is Windows 10 so painfully slow to boot up, or to
wake up from hibernating, compared with something like eCS version 2.1?
We already know that Windows is slow, but why does it get slower with
every update?

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

Rich Ulrich

2017-03-17 19:25:47 UTC

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:46:46 -0400, Tony Cooper

I had the same general problem, and I tried computer glasses
for a while. Not satisfactory. I need the bifocals to read things
closer or to see details on tv (farther), but it turns out that I can
read my monitor rather well with no glasses at all -- which was
sort of what my computer glasses gave me.

What I do now is wear my glasses a bit low on the nose while
using my pc, leaning forward and peering over the top. That poor
posture works out okay. When something interesting happens on tv,
I sit back and watch through the lens. I may push the glasses up
a bit for reading a book.

Post by Tony Cooper
I have an ophthalmologist appointment coming up, and I'm sure I'll
need new prescriptions so I'll be buying new glasses.
How do y'all handle it if you have similar problems?
Progressive lenses (I've never tried those)? Trifocals?

--
Rich Ulrich

David Kleinecke

2017-03-17 20:25:24 UTC

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:46:46 -0400, Tony Cooper

I had the same general problem, and I tried computer glasses
for a while. Not satisfactory. I need the bifocals to read things
closer or to see details on tv (farther), but it turns out that I can
read my monitor rather well with no glasses at all -- which was
sort of what my computer glasses gave me.
What I do now is wear my glasses a bit low on the nose while
using my pc, leaning forward and peering over the top. That poor
posture works out okay. When something interesting happens on tv,
I sit back and watch through the lens. I may push the glasses up
a bit for reading a book.

I had cataract operations (both eyes) and it completely changed
my glasses situation. Now I normally do not wear glasses and my
vision is ideal for use with a desktop computer. I have two pairs
of glasses to see better - reading and driving. I can read and
drive quite well without them (but they do help). I also have a
pair of non-tinted sunglasses - just in case.

In the old days I was extremely near-sighted and never found not
wearing glasses.

Peter Moylan

2017-03-18 02:35:27 UTC

Post by Rich Ulrich
What I do now is wear my glasses a bit low on the nose while
using my pc, leaning forward and peering over the top. That poor
posture works out okay. When something interesting happens on tv,
I sit back and watch through the lens. I may push the glasses up
a bit for reading a book.

When I first needed reading glasses, I got the narrow kind that made it
easy to peer over the top. That removed the necessity of having to put
them on and off all the time.

My distance vision is still good enough not to need correction, but now
that I have progressive lenses the lenses need to be larger in the
vertical dimension, making it harder to peer over the top without
causing neck pain. That means I'm back to the problem of having to take
the glasses off frequently. No doubt I'll eventually have to get a chain
to hang the glasses around my neck, but I've never liked the look of
those chains.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

s***@gowanhill.com

2017-03-18 15:16:48 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
No doubt I'll eventually have to get a chain
to hang the glasses around my neck, but I've never liked the look of
those chains.

I've always thought of them as an 'older person's' accessory in fashion terms.

Owain

John Varela

2017-03-18 23:14:29 UTC

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Peter Moylan
No doubt I'll eventually have to get a chain
to hang the glasses around my neck, but I've never liked the look of
those chains.

I've always thought of them as an 'older person's' accessory in fashion terms.

It's hard to find a decent chain that doesn't look like something
that would be worn by a middle school lirarian. I have always been
partial to actual chains rather than ribbons or cords because it's
easy to wind a chain around the center of the glasses with a flick
of the wrist.

The trouble with most chains is that, like those coiled telephone
cords of ancient memory, they tend to get twisted. The chain I have
now is the best I've ever had. It's a ball chain, such as seen on
pull cords for electric lights. It can't possibly be twisted or
tangled. It's the only one like it I've ever seen and the optician
only had the one.

--
John Varela

Charles Bishop

2017-03-19 15:24:12 UTC

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Peter Moylan
No doubt I'll eventually have to get a chain
to hang the glasses around my neck, but I've never liked the look of
those chains.

I've always thought of them as an 'older person's' accessory in fashion terms.

They are also made of cord or other material and that's what I use
sometimes. They are handy when I'm working since I can take the glasses
off for close work and don't have to put them aside where they might get
damaged.

There is also materials that can be used when playing sports that keep
the glasses secure on my face, reducing the risk they will fly off with
active motion.

--
charles

Robert Bannister

2017-03-19 00:33:25 UTC

When I first needed reading glasses, I got the narrow kind that made it
easy to peer over the top. That removed the necessity of having to put
them on and off all the time.
My distance vision is still good enough not to need correction, but now
that I have progressive lenses the lenses need to be larger in the
vertical dimension, making it harder to peer over the top without
causing neck pain. That means I'm back to the problem of having to take
the glasses off frequently. No doubt I'll eventually have to get a chain
to hang the glasses around my neck, but I've never liked the look of
those chains.

I don't need to peer over the top of mine. The top of the lenses is
clear glass in my glasses.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

Charles Bishop

2017-03-18 18:03:39 UTC

I use Progressive lenses (trifocals) for most things.

However, I've gotten into the habit of taking my glasses off to work on
the computer and when reading. I can see fine with my screen about 18
inches away with my glasses off.

Unfortunately this can be a bad habit, since I often forget where I've
put my glasses when I take them off since I often get up and do chores
ad the like without wearing the glasses.

It seems as if my solution isn't one you'd want to consider.

--
charles

Peter Moylan

2017-03-19 04:48:36 UTC

Post by Charles Bishop
However, I've gotten into the habit of taking my glasses off to work on
the computer and when reading. I can see fine with my screen about 18
inches away with my glasses off.

That's the second person in this thread who sits 18 inches away from the
screen. My distance is a little over 60 cm, which I guess would be about
25 inches.

Now I'm remembering my mother saying "Don't sit so close to the TV.
You'll ruin your eyes."

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

bill van

2017-03-19 06:32:50 UTC

Post by Charles Bishop
However, I've gotten into the habit of taking my glasses off to work on
the computer and when reading. I can see fine with my screen about 18
inches away with my glasses off.

That's the second person in this thread who sits 18 inches away from the
screen. My distance is a little over 60 cm, which I guess would be about
25 inches.
Now I'm remembering my mother saying "Don't sit so close to the TV.
You'll ruin your eyes."

I happen to have a tape measure handy. I'm at 24 inches (61 cm) from my
screen, and I'm wearing progressive lenses. My head angle adjustment to
get clear focus on the screen is completely automatic, requiring no
conscious thought.

--
bill

Tony Cooper

2017-03-19 14:20:49 UTC

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 15:48:36 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Charles Bishop
However, I've gotten into the habit of taking my glasses off to work on
the computer and when reading. I can see fine with my screen about 18
inches away with my glasses off.

That's the second person in this thread who sits 18 inches away from the
screen. My distance is a little over 60 cm, which I guess would be about
25 inches.
Now I'm remembering my mother saying "Don't sit so close to the TV.
You'll ruin your eyes."

My normal distance is 24" from the screen: 61 cm.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Robert Bannister

2017-03-19 23:45:34 UTC

Post by Charles Bishop
However, I've gotten into the habit of taking my glasses off to work on
the computer and when reading. I can see fine with my screen about 18
inches away with my glasses off.

That's the second person in this thread who sits 18 inches away from the
screen. My distance is a little over 60 cm, which I guess would be about
25 inches.
Now I'm remembering my mother saying "Don't sit so close to the TV.
You'll ruin your eyes."

Ah, but old, cathode-ray tube TVs had a noticeable flicker that was
alleged to be bad for your eyes.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

Whiskers

2017-03-20 00:07:03 UTC

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Charles Bishop
However, I've gotten into the habit of taking my glasses off to work
on the computer and when reading. I can see fine with my screen
about 18 inches away with my glasses off.

That's the second person in this thread who sits 18 inches away from
the screen. My distance is a little over 60 cm, which I guess would
be about 25 inches.
Now I'm remembering my mother saying "Don't sit so close to the TV.
You'll ruin your eyes."

Ah, but old, cathode-ray tube TVs had a noticeable flicker that was
alleged to be bad for your eyes.

In my family the fear was of X-Rays coming through the screen. My
grandfather marked a line on the floor six feet from the TV and no child
was allowed closer while the TV was on. Fortunately, we were too young
to know what the TV was really about and too young to know that we were
all very short-sighted. But there were people telling stories, so that
was OK.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

LFS

2017-03-18 18:58:52 UTC

Are progressive lenses the same as varifocals?

For many years I wore reading glasses which I was always losing so I
bought half frames so I could wear them all the time but look over the
top when not needing magnification (also good for intimidating students).

Eventually the optician who then looked after my eyes suggested that it
was time for something more, particularly when driving, and he proposed
bifocals. I wore them for a time but found the line across the lens
distracting so he suggested varifocals. My husband had had some
difficulty in adjusting to varifocals so I was apprehensive but I had no
problems adjusting to them. I have been wearing them for about fifteen
years with no change in the prescription needed.

Recently I have had some vision problems and my new optometrist tells me
that I need new lenses which can't be fitted into my old frames - which
is a costly nuisance. She has also recommended that I get a cheap pair
of reading glasses because these will provide a bigger lens area for
reading than the varifocals do.

I now feel slightly baffled and have the sense that I have come full
circle.

But hearing aids are *much* more problematic...

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

Tony Cooper

2017-03-18 20:36:16 UTC

Post by LFS

Are progressive lenses the same as varifocals?

Yes, and it goes to my comment to Janet that "varifocals" is used as a
generic, not a brand name.
http://www.onlineopticiansuk.com/varifocal-progressive-lenses-explained-i128

Varifocals/progressive brand names are Verilux, Presio, GP, Summit.
The Zeiss product is "Zeiss Progressive Individual" and "Zeiss
Progressive Plus 2".

Post by LFS
For many years I wore reading glasses which I was always losing so I
bought half frames so I could wear them all the time but look over the
top when not needing magnification (also good for intimidating students).
Eventually the optician who then looked after my eyes suggested that it
was time for something more, particularly when driving, and he proposed
bifocals. I wore them for a time but found the line across the lens
distracting so he suggested varifocals. My husband had had some
difficulty in adjusting to varifocals so I was apprehensive but I had no
problems adjusting to them. I have been wearing them for about fifteen
years with no change in the prescription needed.
Recently I have had some vision problems and my new optometrist tells me
that I need new lenses which can't be fitted into my old frames - which
is a costly nuisance.

Same here. New lenses can't be fitted into old frames and old lenses
can't be fitted into new frames.

It's the same marketing ploy used by inkjet printers. If you buy a
new printer, all of those unused cartridges you still have will not
fit in the new printer.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Theodore Heise

2017-03-18 21:02:12 UTC

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:36:16 -0400,

Post by LFS
Recently I have had some vision problems and my new optometrist
tells me that I need new lenses which can't be fitted into my
old frames - which is a costly nuisance.

Same here. New lenses can't be fitted into old frames and old
lenses can't be fitted into new frames.

It's not completely a bad thing. I recently wanted to try out my
previous glasses, just to see if their progressive connfiguration
was as intolerable as I remembered. Turns out I couldn't do it,
because they put my new lenses in the old frame and my old lenses
are loose.

--
Ted Heise <***@panix.com> Bloomington, IN, USA

Cheryl

2017-03-18 22:05:38 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
Same here. New lenses can't be fitted into old frames and old lenses
can't be fitted into new frames.
It's the same marketing ploy used by inkjet printers. If you buy a
new printer, all of those unused cartridges you still have will not
fit in the new printer.

I've been running into the "styles have changed and I don't think we
have any that your lenses will fit". My usual process is to pick out
frames I like (hampered by the fact that without glasses I can't see my
reflection very well, and the place I go doesn't have the camera setup I
see on TV). Then the optician tells me why I can't have them (usually
because one of my lenses is thick enough, even when made with the
expensive thinner plastic, that frames that are too large or which don't
go all the way around the lens are not advised.

We work out a compromise. I don't think I've ever managed to have my old
lenses put into new frames, though.

--
Cheryl

Peter Moylan

2017-03-19 04:53:54 UTC

I've been running into the "styles have changed and I don't think we
have any that your lenses will fit". My usual process is to pick out
frames I like (hampered by the fact that without glasses I can't see my
reflection very well, and the place I go doesn't have the camera setup I
see on TV). Then the optician tells me why I can't have them (usually
because one of my lenses is thick enough, even when made with the
expensive thinner plastic, that frames that are too large or which don't
go all the way around the lens are not advised.
We work out a compromise. I don't think I've ever managed to have my old
lenses put into new frames, though.

My current lenses, obtained just a few weeks ago, are in the old frame.
I happened to like that style, so I told them to re-use the frame. The
lenses had to be cut to the right shape, but that's what happens anyway.
Lenses, as originally manufactured, start out being very much larger
than their final size.

The old lenses were badly scratched -- I have a bad habit of dropping my
glasses -- so I told them to throw them away.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Cheryl

2017-03-19 09:22:27 UTC

I've been running into the "styles have changed and I don't think we
have any that your lenses will fit". My usual process is to pick out
frames I like (hampered by the fact that without glasses I can't see my
reflection very well, and the place I go doesn't have the camera setup I
see on TV). Then the optician tells me why I can't have them (usually
because one of my lenses is thick enough, even when made with the
expensive thinner plastic, that frames that are too large or which don't
go all the way around the lens are not advised.
We work out a compromise. I don't think I've ever managed to have my old
lenses put into new frames, though.

My current lenses, obtained just a few weeks ago, are in the old frame.
I happened to like that style, so I told them to re-use the frame. The
lenses had to be cut to the right shape, but that's what happens anyway.
Lenses, as originally manufactured, start out being very much larger
than their final size.
The old lenses were badly scratched -- I have a bad habit of dropping my
glasses -- so I told them to throw them away.

I'm hard on glasses, and frames, especially the cheaper ones, don't
last. I have had frames that seemed tougher than average but as I said,
they couldn't or wouldn't try putting new lenses in them.

--
Cheryl

John Varela

2017-03-18 23:17:12 UTC

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 20:36:16 UTC, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
Same here. New lenses can't be fitted into old frames and old lenses
can't be fitted into new frames.

Yes they can. Costco will do it. $75 for a pair of bifocals.

--
John Varela

Hank

2017-03-19 06:57:28 UTC

Post by LFS
Are progressive lenses the same as varifocals?
For many years I wore reading glasses which I was always losing so I
bought half frames so I could wear them all the time but look over the
top when not needing magnification (also good for intimidating students).
Eventually the optician who then looked after my eyes suggested that it
was time for something more, particularly when driving, and he proposed
bifocals. I wore them for a time but found the line across the lens
distracting so he suggested varifocals. My husband had had some
difficulty in adjusting to varifocals so I was apprehensive but I had no
problems adjusting to them. I have been wearing them for about fifteen
years with no change in the prescription needed.
Recently I have had some vision problems and my new optometrist tells me
that I need new lenses which can't be fitted into my old frames - which
is a costly nuisance. She has also recommended that I get a cheap pair
of reading glasses because these will provide a bigger lens area for
reading than the varifocals do.
I now feel slightly baffled and have the sense that I have come full
circle.
But hearing aids are *much* more problematic...

Laura, let's talk a bit about eye examinations and so forth.

The trained talent that works in the field has three titles.

Ophthalmologist: Has MD training, and can prescribe drugs and perform
surgery, in addition to conducting vision examinations. Many limit
their practice to the high end.

Optometrist: Trained to conduct vision examinations, including methods
for detecting various vision diseases. Many OD's are tops in their
ability to solve problems; however, they cannot prescribe drugs or
perform surgery.

Optician: A technologist who makes eyeglasses. Does not conduct vision
examinations.

In addition, many practices employ semi-skilled assistants to conduct
basic tests, using equipment that doesn't require skill or high risk.

The prescription: You can look up several on-line articles that will
tell you what the prescription is telling you and how to interpret it.
Basically, OD is "opter dexter," or "right eye." OS is "opter
sinister," or "left eye." Spherical grind is overall correction;
cylindrical is at an angle and is astigmatic correction. Both are
specified in "diopters." One diopter focusses parallel light at one
meter. Prismatic correction is a tilt correction that is specified in
"prism diopters," which is an angular measurement. This is for problems
with double vision, where the two eyes do not converge on a common
point. Specified as a diopter value and "base" (widest part) position.

PD is "pupillary distance", measured either from the bridge of the nose
to either eye (2 measurements) or between the centers of the pupils of
the two eyes (1 measurement). Important because a corrective lens that
is not centered directly in front of the eye will distort the image and
give an unwanted "prism" effect. Values are in millimeters.

"Add" is for near vision correction. It is in diopters, the number to
add to the distance vision spherical correction. It is NOT the absolute
value of the near vision correction that needs to be in your reading
glasses.

One important number that is not on the prescription is your eyeball
pressure. Major problem is with high pressure causing glaucoma.
Typical "good" pressures are around 12-20 millimeters of mercury. That
is like barometric pressure, except the numbers are much smaller.

The basic tools used nowadays to get a specification for distance vision
are the autorefractor and phoropter. An autorefractor is a fancy
electronic device that operates like a camera autofocus to do a "rough
cut" on the spherical and cylindrical corrections needed. This is
relatively modern technology, but they seem to do a pretty good job.

The phoropter is the classic device used to put corrective lenses
manually in front of an eye to determine the correction needed. Even
with a good autorefractor printout, a good examination includes
phoropter work to verify and home in on the final specification.

The phoropter also is used to conduct the two-eye tests for vertical and
horizontal convergence.

Tonometry is used to determine eyeball pressure.

Those are just some of the basics.

When it comes to fitting lenses to frames, traditionally lenses were
made as large round lenses which were ground down to the size and shape
needed to fit the frame. Nowadays it seems that lenses for popular
current frames are available that need only grinding to set the PD
correctly.

I buy my glasses from Zenni Optical.
http://www.zennioptical.com/
I got "calibrated" by several high-tech people who know more about
optics than I do on Zenni some years ago. At something like $30 a
pair, I can have three sets with different spherical values for various
distances, and they are "expendables" at those prices.

For sunglasses, I have Noir UVshield 21's (lighter) and 22's (darker), also
cheap expendables. They double as protective glasses, and can be worn over
corrective glasses.

I think if you are talking about relensing 15-year-old frames, you
should consider new frames. Things like the temple hinge pins tend
to wear out, and other parts get bent up with time.

Hank

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2017-03-19 12:22:04 UTC

Laura, let's talk a bit about eye examinations and so forth.
The trained talent that works in the field has three titles.

Those descriptions eem to apply in the US. Laura is in the UK. The
definitions are similar but neot necessarily identical.

Post by Hank
Ophthalmologist: Has MD training, and can prescribe drugs and perform
surgery, in addition to conducting vision examinations. Many limit
their practice to the high end.
Optometrist: Trained to conduct vision examinations, including methods
for detecting various vision diseases. Many OD's are tops in their
ability to solve problems; however, they cannot prescribe drugs or
perform surgery.
Optician: A technologist who makes eyeglasses. Does not conduct vision
examinations.

In the UK the title "Optician" is used in at least two ways. One is:

Dispensing opticians

Dispensing opticians fit glasses and contact lenses working from the
prescriptions written by an ophthalmic practitioner or
ophthalmologist. They also fit and dispense low vision aids such as
magnifying glasses or telescopic spectacles. They don't carry out
eye tests. A dispensing optician can give you advice on types of
lenses, such as single-vision or bifocal (lenses with two distinct
optical powers), and help you to choose frames and other optical
aids. They also advise patients on how to wear and care for their
spectacles or contact lenses.

From:
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/opticians/Pages/NHSopticians.aspx#professionals

Optician is also used more generally for the business, shop, whatever,
that conducts eye tests, and prescribes and supplies glasses.

From that same webpage:

When you visit an optician for an eye test, you'll be examined by an
ophthalmic practitioner or optometrist who is trained to recognise
abnormalities and conditions such as cataracts or glaucoma.
Ophthalmic practitioners will prescribe and fit glasses and contact
lenses, and, if necessary, they will refer you to a GP or a hospital
eye clinic for further investigations. Sometimes you'll be referred
to a specialist optometrist for a referral refinement.

"Optician" is also used informally by clients to refer generically to
Optometrists, Ophthalmologist, etc.

I don't know what job title is used in the UK for a person who "makes
eyeglasses".

Post by Hank
In addition, many practices employ semi-skilled assistants to conduct
basic tests, using equipment that doesn't require skill or high risk.
The prescription: You can look up several on-line articles that will
tell you what the prescription is telling you and how to interpret it.
Basically, OD is "opter dexter," or "right eye." OS is "opter
sinister," or "left eye." Spherical grind is overall correction;
cylindrical is at an angle and is astigmatic correction. Both are
specified in "diopters." One diopter focusses parallel light at one
meter. Prismatic correction is a tilt correction that is specified in
"prism diopters," which is an angular measurement. This is for problems
with double vision, where the two eyes do not converge on a common
point. Specified as a diopter value and "base" (widest part) position.
PD is "pupillary distance", measured either from the bridge of the nose
to either eye (2 measurements) or between the centers of the pupils of
the two eyes (1 measurement). Important because a corrective lens that
is not centered directly in front of the eye will distort the image and
give an unwanted "prism" effect. Values are in millimeters.
"Add" is for near vision correction. It is in diopters, the number to
add to the distance vision spherical correction. It is NOT the absolute
value of the near vision correction that needs to be in your reading
glasses.
One important number that is not on the prescription is your eyeball
pressure. Major problem is with high pressure causing glaucoma.
Typical "good" pressures are around 12-20 millimeters of mercury. That
is like barometric pressure, except the numbers are much smaller.
The basic tools used nowadays to get a specification for distance vision
are the autorefractor and phoropter. An autorefractor is a fancy
electronic device that operates like a camera autofocus to do a "rough
cut" on the spherical and cylindrical corrections needed. This is
relatively modern technology, but they seem to do a pretty good job.
The phoropter is the classic device used to put corrective lenses
manually in front of an eye to determine the correction needed. Even
with a good autorefractor printout, a good examination includes
phoropter work to verify and home in on the final specification.
The phoropter also is used to conduct the two-eye tests for vertical and
horizontal convergence.
Tonometry is used to determine eyeball pressure.
Those are just some of the basics.
When it comes to fitting lenses to frames, traditionally lenses were
made as large round lenses which were ground down to the size and shape
needed to fit the frame. Nowadays it seems that lenses for popular
current frames are available that need only grinding to set the PD
correctly.
I buy my glasses from Zenni Optical.
http://www.zennioptical.com/
I got "calibrated" by several high-tech people who know more about
optics than I do on Zenni some years ago. At something like $30 a
pair, I can have three sets with different spherical values for various
distances, and they are "expendables" at those prices.
For sunglasses, I have Noir UVshield 21's (lighter) and 22's (darker), also
cheap expendables. They double as protective glasses, and can be worn over
corrective glasses.
I think if you are talking about relensing 15-year-old frames, you
should consider new frames. Things like the temple hinge pins tend
to wear out, and other parts get bent up with time.
Hank

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Hank

2017-03-19 18:29:07 UTC

Laura, let's talk a bit about eye examinations and so forth.
The trained talent that works in the field has three titles.

Those descriptions eem to apply in the US. Laura is in the UK. The
definitions are similar but neot necessarily identical.

Thanks for pointing out that British English and American are not the
same. Also, that you're dealing with your National Health Service,
while we in the states are poorly covered (if at all) by insurance plans
for vision and dental care.
Locally (central Wyoming, quite rural), there are three outfits in town
that have OD optometrists coupled with dispensing opticians. Terms like
"Eye Center" and "Vision Clinic" are in their business names. They
expect you to have an eye exam and then buy distance corrective glasses
from them, and you'll walk out after having shelled out about $400.

The ophthalmologist who does cataract surgery locally flies down from
Billings Mont. for one week a month, and does a land office business. I
had to wait six months to get the first surgery, and another two for the
second, and if my vision was bad when I had the exam, that wait left me
pretty blind at the end. However, some checking around told me that
"he's the best" and that waiting to have him do it would be better than
trying to have it done in Denver, etc.

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2017-03-19 19:36:47 UTC

Laura, let's talk a bit about eye examinations and so forth.
The trained talent that works in the field has three titles.

Those descriptions eem to apply in the US. Laura is in the UK. The
definitions are similar but neot necessarily identical.

In the UK most eye testing and the supply of glasses and contact lenses
is done by businesses outside the NHS. However, the NHS will pay for eye
tests and the supply of glasses under certain circumstances: young
people, old people, registered partially sighted or blind, diagnosed
with diabetes or glaucoma, at known risk from glaucoma, etc. In such
cases the patient provides the necessary evidence and the business will
claim the fee from the NHS.

I qualify for free annual eye tests because of my age. After each test I
have to sign the form that will be used to claim the fee from the NHS to
certify that I have had the test.

Under some circumstances the NHS will pay for the prescribed glasses as
well as the test. (The NHS will pay only for basic frames, not fancy,
expensive, ones)

Post by Hank
Locally (central Wyoming, quite rural), there are three outfits in town
that have OD optometrists coupled with dispensing opticians. Terms like
"Eye Center" and "Vision Clinic" are in their business names. They
expect you to have an eye exam and then buy distance corrective glasses
from them, and you'll walk out after having shelled out about $400.
The ophthalmologist who does cataract surgery locally flies down from
Billings Mont. for one week a month, and does a land office business. I
had to wait six months to get the first surgery, and another two for the
second, and if my vision was bad when I had the exam, that wait left me
pretty blind at the end. However, some checking around told me that
"he's the best" and that waiting to have him do it would be better than
trying to have it done in Denver, etc.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Cheryl

2017-03-19 19:55:36 UTC

Laura, let's talk a bit about eye examinations and so forth.
The trained talent that works in the field has three titles.

Those descriptions eem to apply in the US. Laura is in the UK. The
definitions are similar but neot necessarily identical.

In the UK most eye testing and the supply of glasses and contact lenses
is done by businesses outside the NHS. However, the NHS will pay for eye
tests and the supply of glasses under certain circumstances: young
people, old people, registered partially sighted or blind, diagnosed
with diabetes or glaucoma, at known risk from glaucoma, etc. In such
cases the patient provides the necessary evidence and the business will
claim the fee from the NHS.
I qualify for free annual eye tests because of my age. After each test I
have to sign the form that will be used to claim the fee from the NHS to
certify that I have had the test.
Under some circumstances the NHS will pay for the prescribed glasses as
well as the test. (The NHS will pay only for basic frames, not fancy,
expensive, ones)

My part of Canada is similar to the US version, except since I live in a
(small) city, some optician/optometrist businesses have an
ophthalmologist on site in case the optometrist spots something that
needs further attention. The business I go to has some opticians out
front, and offices and a waiting room in back for a couple of
optometrists and ophthalmologists. I could also be referred to an
ophthalmologist by my family doctor, or if I had to go to the ER. You
don't have to go to the associated optician once the optometrist gives
you your prescription, but I usually do. All these costs are reimbursed
through my private insurance, but if I was treated by an
ophthalmologist, the cost would come out of the provincial medicare
plan. Years ago, I used to get routine checks done by an
ophthalmologist, but that was an unusual situation, and nowadays I don't
think any of them do routine vision checked. Some small-town optometrist
screwed up my prescription, and after that all the family went to the
capital city to have our eyes checked by someone who had been a local GP
before going back to train as an ophthalmologist. He operated on my
cousin's eyes. I thought of him as kind of a family eye doctor, but he
retired a long, long time ago.

--
Cheryl

Richard Tobin

2017-03-20 02:31:45 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In the UK most eye testing and the supply of glasses and contact lenses
is done by businesses outside the NHS. However, the NHS will pay for eye
tests and the supply of glasses under certain circumstances: young
people, old people, registered partially sighted or blind, diagnosed
with diabetes or glaucoma, at known risk from glaucoma, etc. In such
cases the patient provides the necessary evidence and the business will
claim the fee from the NHS.

s/UK/England/ (and perhaps Wales and Northern Ireland).

In Scotland, the NHS pays for eye tests for everyone.

-- Richard

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2017-03-20 10:59:49 UTC

Post by Richard Tobin

s/UK/England/ (and perhaps Wales and Northern Ireland).
In Scotland, the NHS pays for eye tests for everyone.
-- Richard

I discovered that after posting the message. :-)

However, I'll stick by my first sentence:

In the UK most eye testing and the supply of glasses and contact
lenses is done by businesses outside the NHS.

That is a cautious statement. I wrote "most". In fact I've never heard
of an NHS facility that does routine eye tests.

What the NHS does do is to operate eye hospitals and eye departments in
hospitals to deal with eye diseases and other eye conditions that do not
require just the supply of corrective lenses.

High street Opticians (as we call them) conduct eye tests and prescribe
and supply corrective lenses. During an eye test the
optometrist/ophthamologist also assesses the health of the eye. If any
health problem is detected the patient will be referred to their own NHS
doctor or to an NHS hospital. A patient with private medical insurance
can choose to be referred to a private doctor or hospital.

Signs of several diseases which are not specific to the eyes can be
detected during an eye test/exam: diabetes, hypertension, high
cholesterol, etc.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Peter Moylan

2017-03-20 04:02:45 UTC

Post by Hank
Thanks for pointing out that British English and American are not the
same. Also, that you're dealing with your National Health Service,
while we in the states are poorly covered (if at all) by insurance plans
for vision and dental care.

In our system the testing is covered by Medicare (our equivalent of your
NHS), so I don't pay anything for that. I do have to pay for the actual
glasses, but I can claim back part of that cost from my private health
insurance. This time the gap between what it cost and the refund will be
small because I chose to re-use my old frame. The gap can be quite large
if you choose an expensive frame.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Robert Bannister

2017-03-19 23:49:33 UTC

Laura, let's talk a bit about eye examinations and so forth.
The trained talent that works in the field has three titles.

Those descriptions eem to apply in the US. Laura is in the UK. The
definitions are similar but neot necessarily identical.

Cheap. My last pair of glasses cost me $800 (Australian dollars). Mind
you, they are light sensitive.

Post by Hank
The ophthalmologist who does cataract surgery locally flies down from
Billings Mont. for one week a month, and does a land office business. I
had to wait six months to get the first surgery, and another two for the
second, and if my vision was bad when I had the exam, that wait left me
pretty blind at the end. However, some checking around told me that
"he's the best" and that waiting to have him do it would be better than
trying to have it done in Denver, etc.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

Janet

2017-03-19 13:15:43 UTC

In article <oala4o$iiu$***@dont-email.me>, ***@blackhole.lostwells.org
says...

Post by Hank
Laura, let's talk a bit about eye examinations and so forth.
The trained talent that works in the field has three titles.
Ophthalmologist: Has MD training, and can prescribe drugs and perform
surgery, in addition to conducting vision examinations. Many limit
their practice to the high end.
Optometrist: Trained to conduct vision examinations, including methods
for detecting various vision diseases. Many OD's are tops in their
ability to solve problems; however, they cannot prescribe drugs or
perform surgery.
Optician: A technologist who makes eyeglasses. Does not conduct vision
examinations.

In UK, the same distinctions apply. However, in popular Br E
"optician" is an umbrella term used to include optometrists, opticians
and their business offices.

Janet

Peter T. Daniels

2017-03-19 14:01:25 UTC

Post by Janet
In UK, the same distinctions apply. However, in popular Br E
"optician" is an umbrella term used to include optometrists, opticians
and their business offices.

What about "oculist"? Some years ago, on the public radio series "Selected
Shorts," an English actor read a story by (IIRC) Edith Wharton in which
an oculist figured prominently -- and he consistently read it as "occultist."
Inexplicable was why the director didn't catch the mistake.

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2017-03-19 14:51:50 UTC

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 07:01:25 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Janet
In UK, the same distinctions apply. However, in popular Br E
"optician" is an umbrella term used to include optometrists, opticians
and their business offices.

"Oculist" is labelled "dated".
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/oculist

It doesn't seem to be in current use.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Whiskers

2017-03-19 15:11:25 UTC

Post by Janet
In UK, the same distinctions apply. However, in popular Br E
"optician" is an umbrella term used to include optometrists,
opticians and their business offices.

What about "oculist"? Some years ago, on the public radio series
"Selected Shorts," an English actor read a story by (IIRC) Edith
Wharton in which an oculist figured prominently -- and he consistently
read it as "occultist." Inexplicable was why the director didn't catch
the mistake.

I think 'oculist' must be very obsolete so I can understand why someone
might misread it for 'ocultist'. But the error should have been obvious
from context, surely? OED finds 20th century British literary usage but
I don't think I've encountered it more recently than in 'Jane Eyre'.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Robert Bannister

2017-03-19 23:54:37 UTC

Post by Janet
says...

In UK, the same distinctions apply. However, in popular Br E
"optician" is an umbrella term used to include optometrists, opticians
and their business offices.

Same here for most people. I recognise that most of the women in the
shop can do little more than fitting the glasses to your head, while the
man in the room at the back, the "eye doctor", with whom I have to make
an appointment, is able to test me and write the prescription for the
new lenses. Above him, as far as I am concerned, there is only the
"specialist". To see him, I need a written referral - this alone costs
over $100, but is covered by most health insurances - and he will work
in a hospital or at the Lions Eye Institute where he will perform
operations or other treatments.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

Peter Moylan

2017-03-20 04:13:08 UTC

Post by Robert Bannister
Same here for most people. I recognise that most of the women in the
shop can do little more than fitting the glasses to your head, while the
man in the room at the back, the "eye doctor", with whom I have to make
an appointment, is able to test me and write the prescription for the
new lenses. Above him, as far as I am concerned, there is only the
"specialist". To see him, I need a written referral - this alone costs
over $100, but is covered by most health insurances - and he will work
in a hospital or at the Lions Eye Institute where he will perform
operations or other treatments.

Much the same for me, although our local eye hospital only treats humans.

I've been there for expensive cadillac surgery (both eyes). More
recently my optometrist referred me back there because of macular
degeneration, but after hearing about the risks of surgery I sought a
second opinion. The second specialist agreed with my preference not to
have the surgery.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

LFS

2017-03-19 14:18:26 UTC

I know.

Mr Gregory, who first suggested the bifocals, was quite old and in the
days when he qualified was described as an optician. But he was, in
current parlance, an optometrist. On two occasions he referred me for
treatment to an ophthalmologist.

[..]

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

Hank

2017-03-18 22:14:19 UTC