Eye tests

as if having 300 different frames to choose from wasn't enough there's 4 different 'grades' of varifocals available at Optical Express costing £150, £230, £330 and top one is 400 odd! frames on top of those prices too
 
Never go to vision express again. Went 5 years a go for glasses and it was a horrible experience. Went 2 years later and the prescription was apparently another -1 in each eye worse. Optician herded (as per OP) me to a dispensing assistant. I just said hang on I can see perfectly I'm not buying any new glasses today.

3 years later..

I went to boots in my local town. Such a nice optician, great staff, one of them particularly eye catching.

My vision was slightly worst (-0.25) in the right eye. Which felt right based on how my vision felt.

I ordered there and then. But on collection of my glasses I managed to get my PD for each eye, they tend not to disclose that of course. It's not the same for my slightly squashed face lol.

So might go online next time.

In store though they did heat up my frame and adjust lots to get it to fit perfectly to my nose and ears.
 
Bassmansam said:
I’m not blind, it’s not like i see nothing but darkness without glasses on. Maybe blurry is the word you meant.
Click to expand...

I was surprised to find that nowadays blind doesn't necessarily mean actually blind, but it doesn't. I only found that out when an optician told me my natural eyesight would be classified as "functionally blind". I'm not convinced that's what the word should mean, but that's how it's used so from a descriptivist point of view that's what it means. I wouldn't say that my natural eyesight is functionally blind. I can see blurred shapes well enough to interact with objects if I'm close enough to touch them and they're large enough. If I stick my face close enough, I can see smaller objects well enough to interact with them. So, for example, I can see well enough to make a cup of tea from sight. To me, that's not blindness. Not actual blindness. I think it would be better to have some different words to describe eyesight between normal and none.
 
Duplicate post from when the forums fell over. I think OcUK needs some more hamsters to avoid over-working them :)
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
I was surprised to find that nowadays blind doesn't necessarily mean actually blind, but it doesn't. I only found that out when an optician told me my natural eyesight would be classified as "functionally blind". I'm not convinced that's what the word should mean, but that's how it's used so from a descriptivist point of view that's what it means. I wouldn't say that my natural eyesight is functionally blind. I can see blurred shapes well enough to interact with objects if I'm close enough to touch them and they're large enough. If I stick my face close enough, I can see smaller objects well enough to interact with them. So, for example, I can see well enough to make a cup of tea from sight. To me, that's not blindness. Not actual blindness. I think it would be better to have some different words to describe eyesight between normal and none.
Click to expand...

How many fingers am I holding up to how many hand am I holding up, should be the scale.

0 to the hand is blind :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom