> otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
> To all that responded to my original question, I thank you. To the
> optometrists on the board, I did just visit one & had my eyes examined. My
> question was just a technical question & replies from both professionals &
> "buffs"(for want of a better term) were helpful. The reason I asked was
> that I had been prescribed progressive lenses with the aforementioned
> prescription after stating that I spend all day on a computer at work, not
> to mention a couple of hours at home. I currently had a prescription pair
> of glasses from another optometrists 4 years old(unknown diopter powers &
> I had forgotten them at work before my appointment with the new
> optometrists). I had told the former optometrist(from another state) that
> I primarily need them for computer use. He prescribed a bi-focal with an
> intermediate power on top for the screen & lower for reading. To this day,
> the prescription is perfect for my needs. The single power intermediate is
> not quite strong enough for me to read paper documents, so I need the
> bi-focal. I can get by with a single lower power reading glass(which I did
> when these frames broke)but prefer a stronger bi-focal. The problem is
> that the new optometrist told me progressives were just what I needed for
> computer use, to read with & to correct the slight fuzziness I have at
> distance. No sooner did I sit down in front of a computer when I realized
> that they were functionally useless for me at work. I am a mail service
> pharmacists who sits at dual 17" LCD monitors with an image of a
> prescription on the left screen & various data on the right(patient
> profile, what the tech entered for the prescription, etc.). This requires
> constant checking back & forth with some speed for efficiency) to make
> sure the data-entry matches the prescription. With the older bi-focals all
> I needed to do was move my eyes back & forth. The progressives had such a
> narrow intermediate field that it not only took constant head movements to
> acquire sharpness but it also slowed me down to the point of uselessness.
> I usually ended up just tilting my head all the way back to read the
> screen through the near area & not the intermediate. However, after
> research, I discovered that only near vision progressives are appropriate
> for use on a computer & I liked the progressive for walking around, so I
> went back & changed them to transitions(I live in Arizona, very sunny)&
> decided to order a new 2nd pair of inexpensive computer-use bi-focal
> on-line to replace my old one(frames 10 years old, lenses 4 years old,
> scratched with a slight crack from trying to pop them back into a slightly
> bent frame). Hence, my questions about how to order the "add" value. I'm
> just surprised that the computer screen appears clear at 26" through the
> 2.5 diopter lowest part of the progressives. I suppose I should take them
> to another shop to confirm the correctness of the new prescription &
> obtain the powers of my old bi-focals.
> I welcome any insights on my saga & any flames for posting a needlessly
> unsolicited long post.
> Thanks again,
> Rich

> Dear Rich,
> Please disregard Allen's postings.
> He thinks you are intellectually incompetent -- and
> I would bet that you are not.
> To much "paternalism" here. AFTER you have
> done these simple checkes YOURSELF -- you
> can go back to your OD, and talk to him/her about
> them.
> Think for yourself.
> Otis
> ++++++++
> A Lieberman wrote:
> > On 25 Jun 2006 18:00:35 -0700, otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
> > > > You might take you glasses off and check this. If at 20 inches
> > > the reading is blurry, then you will need some "plus" to read.
> > Dear Rich,
> > > Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and
> > not in any position to give medical advice like above.
> > > Thank you!
> > > Allen
To all that responded to my original question, I thank you. To the

> Dear Rich,
> I will make this statement as an Engineer.

> On 25 Jun 2006 18:00:35 -0700, otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
> > You might take you glasses off and check this. If at 20 inches
> > the reading is blurry, then you will need some "plus" to read.
> Dear Rich,
> Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and
> not in any position to give medical advice like above.
> Thank you!
> Allen

> You might take you glasses off and check this. If at 20 inches
> the reading is blurry, then you will need some "plus" to read.

> Thank you for the reply. If I were to get bi-focal glasses for computer
> use, the prescription would be something like OD, OS 1.5, add 1.00 &
> that would yield a 2.5 diopter lower lens to read with?

> Thanks,
> Rich

> Thank you for the reply. If I were to get bi-focal glasses for computer
> use, the prescription would be something like OD, OS 1.5, add 1.00 & that
> would yield a 2.5 diopter lower lens to read with?
> Thanks,
> Rich

> Greetings,
> I am primarily Presbyopic & my prescription I OD & OS +0.5; add 2.00. I
> have progressive lenses & my question is about the reading strength of
> the lenses. Is it 0.5 + 2.00=2.5 diopters or just 2.00 diopters at the
> bottom of the lens.