"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
...
On 08/06/2021 03:58, Joey wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2021 21:02, Joey wrote:


"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2021 00:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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?

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?

There isnt any other way to do it.

There is - an Autorefractor.

I hadn't heard of that. Thanks for pointing it out.

It doesnt replace what he doesnt like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor#Uses

The conclusions stated under "Retinoscopy" in that Wiki are based on old
papers from about 15 years ago. Even the stated "recent studies..."
references papers from 2006 and 2007.

If you look at ref 2, which is from 2005
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15630406/), at the bottom of the paper
is a list headed "Similar articles". The second paper is from 2019. and if
you also look at the "Cited by" heading you will find papers from 2018 -
2021. I had a look at all the conclusions in these recent papers, and it
seems to me the general view was that modern automatic methods give a
satisfactory result, acceptably similar to clinical retinoscopy in most
cases.

If I do a self-test for reading strength (eg at
https://www.readingglassesetc.com/pages/reading-lens-guide/reading-glasses-strength-and-reading-test.html),
I can read down to the smallest line (+1.25D) without problem. Why then
does my optician prescribe +2.75D glasses for me? I assume it's because of
the responses I gave during the eye test, which is entirely subjective. I
don't have an issue with corrective lenses for astigmatic issues, but I
find the "solution" for long-sightedness less than satisfactory. Do those
with short-sightedness have the same problem with their prescribed
glasses?

I am very short sighted and have never had a problem with my prescribed
glasses.

My optician did the autorefractor followed by the test with various lenses
the last time just recently.

For decades I chose to wear the glasses that work best for the computer
screen at about full arms length from my face even when out and about.
The main downside with that approach is that you can fail to recognise
people at a distance when out and about.

I now find a real problem with reading the labels on stuff when
buying stuff in a supermarket and should really have a second
pair to use in that situation so I dont have to pick up the item
to be able to read the label.

But I am about to have the cataracts done so havent bothered
until I see what things are like with cataracts done.