Before today’s e-column, an administrative note.
Nothing I’ve ever written has ever prompted a reaction like last week’s e-column. In six days, over 1,150 of you added comments to the online version at nytimes.com/pogue. The column was the #1 most e-mailed New York Times article for two days straight. Three publishers invited me to turn the topic into a book. (I’ve chosen my existing publisher, O’Reilly.)
The topic, of course, was “essential tech tips you thought everybody knew–but nobody, including you, knows them all.”
From this experience, I’ve learned that: (1) When you get a computer, phone, camera or other gadget, there’s no single, uniform, obvious place to learn the basics. You’re on your own.
(2) As a result, everybody knows 40 or 80 percent of what there is to know–but everybody knows a *different* 40 or 80 percent.
(3) Humanity is wasting hundreds of millions of cumulative hours, days and years by doing things the long way.
All right, now down to the real business of today’s newsletter: computer glasses.
According to the breathless press materials that accompany the Gunnar Optiks “high-performance eyewear,” 125 million Americans suffer from Digital Eye Fatigue (DEF) and Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS): “eyestrain, blurred vision, dry and irritated eyes or headaches, caused by exposure to digital screens.” Even scarier: “nearly 90 percent of those [children] who use a computer at least 3 hours a day suffer vision problems.”
Wow, could have fooled me. Over half the adult population, and 90 percent of our children, suffer from diseases nobody’s ever heard of?
Anyway, the company says that it has a solution: wear their glasses ($100 to $190) whenever you’re using the computer or a pocket gadget. They sent me a pair to try out.
The whole presentation of these things is so pompous and pretentious, I was inclined to roll my eyes. (But I didn’t. I didn’t want to risk getting Rolled Eye Syndrome [RES] or Toxic Sarcasm Overload [TSO].)
How self-important is this company? It insists on presenting its name in all capitals in every sentence (GUNNAR, not Gunnar). It misspells words to seem more European (”optiks,” not “optics”). The glasses are available in many different styles, all with names that beg to be considered hip: Phenom. Groove. Bit Surfer. Weezer. (Weezer? OK, *most* strive to be hip.)
The product literature is larded with ridiculous technology names like i-AMP, i-Fi , fRACTYL, iONik and diAMIX. Ever single use of every single term is accompanied by the little “tm” trademark symbol.
From this, we can conclude two things: First, the company has no clue how and when, legally speaking, to use the trademark symbol. Second, something’s seriously wrong with their Caps Lock key.
OK. So how are the glasses?
Maybe I’m the wrong person to ask. I spend long hours at the computer, but I’ve somehow managed to escape the chilling specter of DEF. And the only brush I’ve had with CVS has been to pick up prescriptions.
But the Frequently Asked Questions says: “What can consumers expect from using GUNNAR digital performance eyewear?” I’ll assess the truthfulness of the answers as follows:
* “An immediate and profound visual advantage.” Mmmmmm, not really. There’s an immediate difference, all right, but it’s not profound, and it’s not entirely a visual advantage.
The computer screen does seem slightly clearer and closer, thanks to a marginal magnifying effect. But the Gunnar glasses actually make very close and very far objects seem a little *less* sharp.
* “Increased contrast and resolution.” Contrast? Maybe. The glasses are tinted yellow-brown, so they eliminate the screen’s blue tint. Maybe that’s supposed to enhance the contrast.
But increased resolution? Baloney. Putting a piece of plastic between you and the monitor is not going to create any more pixels from thin air.
* “Less glare/reflective light from the computer screen.” Not that I could tell. Reflections are reflections, even if they’re passing through tinted plastic.
* “Less eye fatigue, less eye strain.” Impossible to say, since I don’t experience those things *without* the glasses.
Now, I certainly don’t intend to trivialize the suffering of real people who may have real eyestrain problems. I’m not even saying that these glasses are worthless.
The trouble is, the company makes so many ludicrous overblown claims, it’s impossible to know when to take it seriously. (”The wrapped geometry of the lens sits close to the eye and face, effectively creating a ‘microclimate’ in the eye pocket by shielding it from drying air currents… The maintenance of healthy humidity levels in the eye is critical to visual performance.” Give me a break. These glasses don’t sit any closer to your face than any other glasses, and don’t do a darned thing to the humidity level around your eyes. To create a “microclimate,” they’d have to be suction cups.)
As a 45-year-old with aging eyes, I do find that wearing the Gunnar glasses makes computer work more pleasant, but it’s primarily because of the magnification. In a roundabout way, the Gunnar glasses did wind up saving me from eystrain: They inspired me to buy a pair of 1.25x reading glasses, which give me exactly the same effect.
I got them for $20. From CVS.
