Is our philosophy wrong?

[For-Life]

Every time we talk about glasses for presbyopes we discuss reading, especially for PALs. We measure the quality of the lens based on size of its reading area, but is that really where we should be looking?

Is that really the way we should be measuring it? The last time I checked I drove using my distance, talked to people using my distance, and watched television using my distance. Also, when I read I tend to look at the paper straight on, when I use the computer I tend to look at it straight on, and the visual width for reading and intermediate has always been much shorter than the distance.

Maybe the importance is not in the reading but in the distance. But don't take my word for it. When Essilor developed the Varilux Ellipse its studies showed that people were more concerned about the distance area. When I fit up that lens to people who are even the heaviest readers they are happy. The comments I gain from the Ipseo is the clearness of the distance. When fitting up the Solamax I have had a lot of problems due to the lack of distance field. We also have this thread about the Carl Zeiss Ultra Compact that hates the distance and because of it has a lot of redos:

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...act#post182593


So is our phiolosophy wrong?

[Jacqui]

So is our phiolosophy wrong?

Yes, I use the distance 90% of the time even in the lab.

:idea: Why not listen more to the patients and think about how they will really use the lenses :idea:

[For-Life]

Yes, I use the distance 90% of the time even in the lab.

:idea: Why not listen more to the patients and think about how they will really use the lenses :idea:

That is the problem. Many lens companies have let our philosophies (not realities) dictate its research instead of letting the research dictate the research. I suggest the development of different designs and experimental testing.

[Darryl Meister]

I think the situation is considerably more complex than you might guess. You are describing a lens design philosophy from your own personal experience as a spectacle wearer. However, while the personal observations of any single individual are certainly important, they are not necessarily representative of the majority of wearers. For instance, I sit at a desk in front of a computer 8 to 10 hours a day, as do many spectacle wearers. I typically don't spend any longer than 30 to 45 minutes in a car though, unless I'm traveling.

Given the inherent compromises of progressive lens design, lens designers must therefore decide how to best tailor the geometry of a progressive lens in order to satisfy the broadest range of wearers. Further, the prescription will play a significant role in this as well. A low hyperope, for instance, may take her progressive lenses off to drive, while a low myope may take her progressive lenses off to read. Consequently, the visual requirements of the wearer are dictated by both her viewing habits and her spectacle prescription.

I have not seen Essilor's research. However, I have seen research from an independent market study that concluded that many progressive lens wearers are dissatisfied with their near vision. Further, Carl Zeiss Vision sponsored some vision science research at the Queensland Institute of Technology a few years back. During this research, over 400 participants were asked to identify their two main work-related activities and two main leisure activities, and to indicate the number of hours spent doing each. Of those hours, on average, roughly 59% were spent performing reading and computer tasks by these participants, while only 6% were spent driving.

Our own product sales have supported these findings. Percepta, for instance, has one of the largest distance zones available, but it has not been quite as successful as SOLAOne, which provides larger near and intermediate zones with a slightly smaller central distance zone. I should also add that, while Varilux Ellipse doesn't really have an especially wide near zone, it does have a high near zone, which still offers improved near utility compared to several general-purpose progressives on the market.

Ideally, eye care professionals would select progressive lens designs only after carefully considering these issues. The visual and lifestyle requirements of the wearer could be taken into account, and then the most suitable progressive lens design would be chosen. However, if you prefer to select a single, "one size fits all" general-purpose progressive lens, as many eye care professionals do, you should probably choose the design that you feel will offer the greatest level of satisfaction to the greatest number of wearers. (Like they say, "You can't please all of the people all of the time...")

[chip anderson]

That's why they make bifocals instead of pals.

[Darryl Meister]

Well, it's certainly why they make bifocals of different styles and sizes, for those who do not want a progressive lens.

[For-Life]

Interesting comments Darryl. I wanted to point out that it is not just my opinion, as I feel it echos that of the board, but I do like how you have research to back up your point giving two sides of the story.

My question leads to the Percepta versus the SolaOne. Would it be fair in saying that the Percepta has a good reading, but not great reading and intermediate and that the SolaOne is a more balanced lens? It makes sense in that way, because the Solamax has not been a successful lens from my attempts due to its limited distance.

So if those things are true, the problem is not the maximization of reading or distance, but rather a fair blend between the two.

That's why they make bifocals instead of pals.

Thanks Chip.

Interesting fact, my bifocal/trifocal versus PAL sales have gone from a 50/50 split to 20/80 in recent years.

[Darryl Meister]

Would it be fair in saying that the Percepta has a good reading, but not great reading and intermediate and that the SolaOne is a more balanced lens? It makes sense in that way, because the Solamax has not been a successful lens from my attempts due to its limited distance... So if those things are true, the problem is not the maximization of reading or distance, but rather a fair blend between the two.

Yes, I would agree with your observations here. Percepta obviously offers more of a distance bias, while SOLAMAX was designed with an emphasis on near and intermediate utility, though both lenses have done quite well as "general-purpose" progressive lenses. However, we certainly feel that SOLAOne represents the best possible balance for most wearers; in fact, the lens was specifically designed to provide what we felt was the ideal balance based on the latest vision research we had at the time. But I don't want to derail this thread into a product-specific discussion...

[For-Life]

Yes, I would agree with your observations here. Percepta obviously offers more of a distance bias, while SOLAMAX was designed with an emphasis on near and intermediate utility, though both lenses have done quite well as "general-purpose" progressive lenses. However, we certainly feel that SOLAOne represents the best possible balance for most wearers; in fact, the lens was specifically designed to provide what we felt was the ideal balance based on the latest vision research we had at the time. But I don't want to derail this thread into a product-specific discussion...

Your not derailing the thread. You are giving specific items of measure for this discussion, and it is appreciated.

[Happylady]

I think it all depends on how the person intends to wear the glasses. It is our job to discuss this with him/her to choose the best lens.

Some people even if they have minimal distance correction still wear their progressives most of the time. I think this is particually true the higher the add and the more the person can't see anything up close without them. For these people a balanced lens like the SolaOne is a good choice.

Some people rarely walk around in their progressives but they still might want to be able to look up and see the distance. The Sola Max might be a better choice.

For sunglasses or for people that want the best possible distance area the Percepta or Gradual Top might be the best choice. Myopic people that usually remove their eyeglasses to read might fall into this group.

I use these lenses only as examples because they have been discussed in this thread.

[For-Life]

I think it all depends on how the person intends to wear the glasses. It is our job to discuss this with him/her to choose the best lens.

Some people even if they have minimal distance correction still wear their progressives most of the time. I think this is particually true the higher the add and the more the person can't see anything up close without them. For these people a balanced lens like the SolaOne is a good choice.

Some people rarely walk around in their progressives but they still might want to be able to look up and see the distance. The Sola Max might be a better choice.

For sunglasses or for people that want the best possible distance area the Percepta or Gradual Top might be the best choice. Myopic people that usually remove their eyeglasses to read might fall into this group.

I use these lenses only as examples because they have been discussed in this thread.

Interesting thought. We have 388 PALs on the market that all do different things (the number comes from another thread). Essilor has 12 PALs off the top of my head with many be rather close in price, Carl Zeiss has around 12 too with AO, Sola and Zeiss again with similar prices and many more are structed like that. Then we take companies like Shamir and Hoya who seem to have a high end, low end, and short corridor lens. However, none of the lens companies market their lens for particular wearers and do research for that. Pretty much one for all approach. Even the Sheedy paper took a similar approach.

I think it would be interesting to try to classify the behaviours of different people with different products and try to recommend a solution.

[Mr_Mitchell]

Further, the prescription will play a significant role in this as well. A low hyperope, for instance, may take her progressive lenses off to drive, while a low myope may take her progressive lenses off to read. Consequently, the visual requirements of the wearer are dictated by both her viewing habits and her spectacle prescription.

Well said.