Well, that was my expectation.
I have worn glasses for reading for about seven years, the prescription has changed slightly but I only needed them for knitting and reading until recently when I found myself putting them on in the morning and wearing them for most of the day to do mid-range stuff like cooking and ironing (!) and dyeing.
I decided a few weeks ago that perhaps I should have my eyes tested again, and off I went to the optician, and emerged half an hour later with a stronger close-work prescription and a slight long distance correction, not much, but enough that I would feel the benefit.
Like most households in which there resides a reading glasses wearer, there is a daily, or let's be honest, the hourly squawk of
"Where are my (insert your expletive of choice) glasses?"
Anxious to move on from this situation I figured it was time to consider varifocals. I researched, and looked at the information provided by the opticians, and came to the conclusion that the cheaper lenses were likely to turn the home situation one in which glasses would be hurled across the room rather than just sat upon, as happened recently... and no, it wasn't my bottom which did the sitting. And he wears glasses all the time so there was really no excuse. I digress.
So I chose frames. This in itself was a bit of a task. The current fashion is for Gok Wan style specs with rectangular frames and huge wedge-of-cheddar shaped legs (or is it arms) at the side in any colour you like, shiny, matte, bejewelled (my spell-checker says bejewelled has one L but I think it looks better with two), chequered, striped and wiggly.
I wanted a brown pair, and an olive green pair. You would have thought this was an easy thing to achieve with four opticians in the shopping mall within staggering-blindly distance of each other. You would be wrong.
Eventually I chose a black everyday type pair, paid £300 for frames and lenses and then waited two weeks to go and collect them. I was told that I would need to adjust to them and not to give up straight away. I was sanguine, sure that such advice was for other mortals. I am a grown up after all. Honestly, I am.
What a complete con.
They are, after a week of trying really, really hard, manageable. JUST.
The phrase "Jack of all trades and master of none" comes to mind. The upper area, for distance, is better than without them, but it's marginal, it's only a +1 prescription so not a huge difference. But it doesn't extend all the way across the top of the lens so things like driving are much harder, instead of looking to the left or right when I come to a junction, I now have to turn into a contortionist and move my head to 90 or more degrees in order to look out of the middle of the top of the lens because that's the only bit that's in focus. Road signs and traffic lights, which I could previously see clearly are hazy. And given my ongoing inability to tell right from left as mentioned in previous posts I may need to employ Ray Mears to sit in the passenger seat and direction-find for me because road signs which tell you where to go at the next junction are migraine inducing. Thank goodness I don't live near Birmingham, pasta city of the world.
I went to the theatre last week, and was able to see the stage clearly from the Upper Circle. But only if I bent forward and looked through the top of the lens, simply moving my eyeballs downwards mean I was looking through the Computer Distance Bit of the lens.
Aaaah. The Computer Distance Bit. The holy grail for a the middle aged spectacle wearer who is looking for a single pair of glasses because they don't want to be like Professor Branestawm.
"He has five pairs of spectacles– one for reading, one for writing, one for out of doors, one for looking at you over the top of and a fifth pair for looking for the others on the frequent occasions when they get lost. Other pairs of spectacles are often mentioned." Wikipedia.
The close work part of the lens is OK. Not bad. Better (i.e. stronger) than my old reading glasses, so I'll admit it's an improvement.
But the Computer Distance Bit is a joke. I am sorry, Mr. Varifocal Inventor, but the Computer Bit is a rubbish.
For a start it seems to be meant for desktops. And of course the crucial thing about a desktop is that the keyboard and the screen are separated from each other. I use a laptop, so when I look at the keyboard through the bottom of the lens and have it in focus - we won't mention it looking as though it has developed a curvature resembling the earth as seen from Apollo 8 - the screen is blurred. If I move the laptop so that the screen is in focus, I am so far from the keyboard that I'm getting a shoulder-joint workout and my elbows aren't on the table. Great arm-exercise but I'm not sure that one of the selling points of varifocals to aforementioned middle aged ladies it their double-duty as Bingo Wings Reduction Devices.
The section of the lens I can actually see through - you know, the reason you wear glasses at all, to help you see things, is tiny. I mean, really, really tiny.
And remember I paid for the sooper dooper expensive lenses so heaven alone knows what it's like in the cheaper ones. I can see the centre of the laptop screen, not the top, not the bottom, not the sides.
The centre. And that's it.
To see the rest of it I have to move my whole head, "point with your nose", the optician said. So I point with my nose, and I can indeed see the top, but then I need to point my flipping nose to the side or the middle or the left to see another part of the image - and we are only talking about a 13" macbook here, not a stonking great 27 inch iMac.
I feel as though I am bobbing about like a demented chicken, Mr. Varifocal Inventor. Web pages are meant to be seen as a whole, not as a collection of snapshots. I know they aren't exactly classical art, but really, this is ridiculous.
In short, varifocals are the Emperor's New Clothes of the spectacle world. Everyone buys into the hype and pays lots of money for them and then tells everyone else how wonderful they are. And I am perfectly prepared to accept that for some people they are indeed wonderful. But for me, they aren't.
I will persist with them for a bit longer, but I am not hopeful.
Varifocals is a misnomer.
Smudge-focals would be nearer to the mark.
n
In the interests of smudgeyness. I have yarn for the shop...
See, even the camera has given up trying to focus.