Computer glasses, do I need one?

Hi all,

Just want some of your opinons. I do have glasses for
short-sightedness. But I only use it when looking at whiteboard or
during conference where the presentations slides are far. Problem is I
face computer everyday and since I can see things that are near to me
clearly, hence I don't wear my glasses. Recently, I was told that I
need computer glasses.

If I don't need glasses for driving or reading things that are near to
me or other things I do, do I need to wear computer glasses?

If I do need to wear computer glasses, that means I only wear them when
I'm using computers, right? Question is, will it make me very dependent
and rely a lot on glasses and eventually I need to wear my glasses all
the time whereas now I don't even wear it all the time?

thanks. Hope someone can advise me or in case any of you have the same
experience as me.

Dear Bats,

Bats> Just want some of your opinons.

Certainly! Since you can get along with out the minus,
your distant vision can't be that bad.

If you want "computer glasses" a simple plus lens,
just go to the drug store, and try some on.

Try a +1.5 to +2 and determine if reading
is comfortable through them.

The cost about $8, so there is no "expense"
problem.

Rather than talking about it -- why
not just give it a try?

If you don't like them, don't wear them.

Best,

Otis



bats wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just want some of your opinons. I do have glasses for
> short-sightedness. But I only use it when looking at whiteboard or
> during conference where the presentations slides are far. Problem is I
> face computer everyday and since I can see things that are near to me
> clearly, hence I don't wear my glasses. Recently, I was told that I
> need computer glasses.
>
> If I don't need glasses for driving or reading things that are near to
> me or other things I do, do I need to wear computer glasses?
>
> If I do need to wear computer glasses, that means I only wear them when
> I'm using computers, right? Question is, will it make me very dependent
> and rely a lot on glasses and eventually I need to wear my glasses all
> the time whereas now I don't even wear it all the time?
>
> thanks. Hope someone can advise me or in case any of you have the same
> experience as me.

(E-Mail Removed) schreef:

> Certainly! Since you can get along with out the minus,
> your distant vision can't be that bad.

Otis, shut up, you certainly have no knowledge what so ever about this.

Dr Judy response is the correct professional one.



Free to Marcus Porcius Cato's "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

In conclusion, I think the " old plus lens therapy junk recovered by
Otis" should be destroyed.

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

On 29 Nov 2006 18:11:51 -0800, "bats" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Just want some of your opinons. I do have glasses for
>short-sightedness. But I only use it when looking at whiteboard or
>during conference where the presentations slides are far. Problem is I
>face computer everyday and since I can see things that are near to me
>clearly, hence I don't wear my glasses. Recently, I was told that I
>need computer glasses.
>
>If I don't need glasses for driving or reading things that are near to
>me or other things I do, do I need to wear computer glasses?
>
>If I do need to wear computer glasses, that means I only wear them when
>I'm using computers, right? Question is, will it make me very dependent
>and rely a lot on glasses and eventually I need to wear my glasses all
>the time whereas now I don't even wear it all the time?
>
>thanks. Hope someone can advise me or in case any of you have the same
>experience as me.

What an odd question. If you can see the computer screen clearly then
why would you bother to get glasses? If you can't then you know you
need them.

Ann

Your "advice" strikes me as odd. Odd in that you are deciding whether
someone can benefit from computer glasses without even knowing what the
refraction is, what the binocularity status is, what the accommodative
response is. It's like saying, in another context, if you feel fine,
why should you take any blood pressure or cholesterol meds? Very odd.

w.stacy, o.d.

Ann wrote:

>
>
>What an odd question. If you can see the computer screen clearly then
>why would you bother to get glasses? If you can't then you know you
>need them.
>
>Ann
>
>

> Ann wrote:

> >What an odd question. If you can see the computer screen clearly then
> >why would you bother to get glasses? If you can't then you know you
> >need them.

William Stacy replied:

> Your "advice" strikes me as odd. Odd in that you are deciding whether
> someone can benefit from computer glasses without even knowing what the
> refraction is, what the binocularity status is, what the accommodative
> response is. It's like saying, in another context, if you feel fine,
> why should you take any blood pressure or cholesterol meds? Very odd.

I want to agree with Bill, and even amplify on it just a touch.

My situation is fairly well known around here. These days, I'm
exotropic (my eyes turn out), but you might not notice it to look at
me. That's because my brain/visual system is expending significant
energy to overcome this misalignment on its own (using accommodative
and vergence amplitudes).

I'm also quite farsighted and have real problems with accommodation
(and recently acquired ocular surface disorders). So when I tell
people that "I can't read," there's no understanding of what I could
possibly mean.

What I MEAN is: while I can physically read, it causes significant
fatigue, dizziness, pain, and nausea and--if I don't stop in a very few
minutes--it "locks up" my accommodative system, altering the alignment
of my eyes AND making me "pseudomyopic--" artificially nearsighted.

Case in point: spent five hours helping rearrange a storage space
yesterday (my whole world was at a distance of less than a few feet for
the entire time). By the time we were finished, I was too
"nearsighted" to drive my car home.

So ... I think Bill Stacy is ab-so-lute-ly right on the money: just
because a visual task CAN be accomplished by a person does not mean
that there isn't an underlying problem that might dramatically benefit
from an optometric (or other) intervention.

Neil

Dr Judy wrote:
> bats wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Just want some of your opinons. I do have glasses for
> > short-sightedness. But I only use it when looking at whiteboard or
> > during conference where the presentations slides are far. Problem is I
> > face computer everyday and since I can see things that are near to me
> > clearly, hence I don't wear my glasses. Recently, I was told that I
> > need computer glasses.
> >
> > If I don't need glasses for driving or reading things that are near to
> > me or other things I do, do I need to wear computer glasses?
>
> Who told you you needed computer glasses and did you ask that person
> why? Is your computer monitor clear without glasses?
>
> Whether you need computer glasses depends upon your age, your distance
> prescription and the distance from your eyes to your computer screen.
>
> Post your distance prescription and the distance from your eyes to the
> computer screen and we might be able to help answer your question.
>
> Judy
>
>
> >
> > If I do need to wear computer glasses, that means I only wear them when
> > I'm using computers, right? Question is, will it make me very dependent
> > and rely a lot on glasses and eventually I need to wear my glasses all
> > the time whereas now I don't even wear it all the time?
> >
> > thanks. Hope someone can advise me or in case any of you have the same
> > experience as me.

Reading through all of your answers suddenly make me think.. why do I
need a computer glasses when I can view the monitor clearly?

And Dr Judy, Yes, my computer monitor is clear even without glasses.
That means, I do not need any glasses, do I? Reason why I started this
topic is, I went to an optical shop and that person there told me that
I should get a computer glasses since I face computer all the time. In
fact, my purpose of going there was to ask him to help me check my
eyesight because after wearing my current glasses (for
shortsightednes), I suffer headache. I was guessing that perhaps that
current glasses do not suit me anymore. Then, he started suggesting on
the computer glasses thing to me. Then, I was thinking (but I wasn't
sure), do I need a computer glasses because I face computer all the
time?

I'm 25 years old, if that helps. I can view my computer monitor
clearly. I have slight astigmatism (-0.50) and -0.75 of
shortsightedness. I hope that figures help. I don't really know what
that figures mean, though. And do I need one computer glasses?

To those who have answered me earlier, thank you so much. :-)

Mike Tyner wrote:
> "bats" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
> > I'm 25 years old, if that helps. I can view my computer monitor
> > clearly. I have slight astigmatism (-0.50) and -0.75 of
> > shortsightedness. I hope that figures help. I don't really know what
> > that figures mean, though. And do I need one computer glasses?
>
> If you can prevent the headaches by taking off your glasses, then no, you
> don't need special glasses for the computer.
>
> Taking your glasses OFF approximates what "computer glasses" would do.
>
> -MT

Oops, when I said headache, it was when I was attending a conference
and I need to use my current, short-sighted glasses to see the slides
in front. It's not that I'm wearing my glasses in front of my laptop.
Sorry for the confusion.

Salmon Egg wrote:

> Although I do not wish to open an old wound on this newsgroup,

I have this nagging suspicion that you are about to do =just tha=
nonetheless....

> many readers
> and posters think that using such glasses will prevent your myopia from
> getting worse. This runs against the religion for most of the health
> professional posters here. I personally disagree with the health
> professionals. I go along with Otis on this point. I do not see how properly
> sized reading glasses can hurt. They may actually supply a benefit.

Oboy.

But the theory seems to fail all scientific testing, except in
near-point esophores. Heck, even Otis's OWN tests left him with one
emmetropic nephew and one myopic niece. Sounds like a crashing failure
to me EVEN THOUGH n=2 is hardly a test for the books.

Relaxing accommodative effort is probably a good thing. Interfering
with the near-vision-triad without expertise HAS CAUSED many an unwary
soul--who has unwittingly listened to Otis--to become diplopic. It's
just not as simple as buying OTC readers ... especially for the young,
or for those in whom binocular status has not been thoroughly
evaluated.

Please make all commercially reasonable efforts to close Pandora's Box.
Mark A's killfile DOES have its limits, after all.

TYVM,
Neil

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:14:53 GMT, William Stacy <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Your "advice" strikes me as odd. Odd in that you are deciding whether
>someone can benefit from computer glasses without even knowing what the
>refraction is, what the binocularity status is, what the accommodative
>response is. It's like saying, in another context, if you feel fine,
>why should you take any blood pressure or cholesterol meds? Very odd.

Ah well, I can see my computer so I certainly won't be taking anyone
else's advice as to whether I need to wear different glasses to see
it. Why would I? It's good and clear for me to see and that's what I
need to do.

>w.stacy, o.d.
>
>Ann wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>What an odd question. If you can see the computer screen clearly then
>>why would you bother to get glasses? If you can't then you know you
>>need them.
>>
>>Ann
>>
>>