On 07/06/2021 10:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 07/06/2021 00:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* newshound wrote:
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.

Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.

I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get
my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else.
Why is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without
magnification?

I keep +1.5 clip-ons in my office, these combined with the computer
glasses are good for reading fairly small print. And another pair of +3
clip-ons for close-up work. For the very fine print (such as laser
etching of serial numbers on small electronic devices) I often find it
as easy to take a photo and view that instead.


As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked
if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific? It
represents one "measurement" at one point in time. I often wonder that,
if the test was repeated at different times on different days, it would
give the same result.


At my more advanced age (70 +) I certainly feel that my "prescription"
can sometimes vary through the day. I'm not sure whether this is because
it actually does, or whether it is an effect of continually reducing
accomodation (so that I notice the effect more).

Multiple eye tests would be a PITA, though.