Bifocal mask

[John C. Ratliff]

TSandM,

Please realize that much of that first paragraph was somewhat in jest--I'm an ol' vintage diver. So far as the depth gauge, I don't really need it as most of my diving is between 25 feet and the surface at this stage. Now, if I lived on Puget Sound, that would be a different matter.

But there is a more serious point here from the ergonomics point of view (man-machine interface--interpreting gauges). Many of our new digital readouts are confusing to read. The older analog gauges with a dial show limited information, but very well. When the needle hit the "red zone," you knew it was time to get up to the surface. But now, even with flashing numbers, it is only numbers in many cases. This can lead to a "man-machine interaction" error; seeing but not really comprehending the information. We also have sometimes so much information on these readouts that it is very confusing to read and understand.

I am interested in some of the newer innovations, such as heads-up displays in the mask. But this aspect of diving has not been explored very much. How does this jive with the thread? Well, bifocals inside a mask give greater capability, but they also take things away too. For instance, there is now a demarkation line in my field of vision. How does this affect the experience of diving, the visual orientation of the diver, even the potential for visual vertigo? Have these topics even been discussed much?

SeaRat

 

[TSandM]

Interesting post, Mr. Ratliffe. I remember reading some articles about analog displays, where it was shown that they are much faster to interpret than digital ones, at least in some settings -- which is why we don't generally have digital speedometers.

And I do think that dive computer displays are often examples of tremendously poor design, where the information which is most important is often not prominent and can be difficult to read.

The bifocals are definitely a tradeoff. I lose some of my field of vision at distance for the ability to read gauges, but also the ability to inspect very small creatures that I would otherwise be unable to see in focus. Like most things about age, the best you can say about them is that they beat the alternative

 

[Hatul]

Interesting post, Mr. Ratliffe. I remember reading some articles about analog displays, where it was shown that they are much faster to interpret than digital ones, at least in some settings -- which is why we don't generally have digital speedometers.

And I do think that dive computer displays are often examples of tremendously poor design, where the information which is most important is often not prominent and can be difficult to read.

The bifocals are definitely a tradeoff. I lose some of my field of vision at distance for the ability to read gauges, but also the ability to inspect very small creatures that I would otherwise be unable to see in focus. Like most things about age, the best you can say about them is that they beat the alternative

I like the digital virtual analog displays that some computers use. Instead of showing numbers they show a bar graph- as for example nitrogen loading or ascent rate indicator.

Adam

 

[SteveTan]

I actually get hooked with the SeawiscopeEY ever since I acquired it!
It allows me to see the smallest letters in the gauges and, best of all, to see all these little creatures that I missed out for a long time.
It looks a bit bulky but works pretty well. You flip the lenses down to see near objects at full field of view. For distant vision, or on landing, you flip the lenses up and the lenses are kept totally out of the way of the dive mask window, giving again full field of view. There are no distortion or missing-step problems.

 

[Marek K]

I actually get hooked with the SeawiscopeEY ever since I acquired it!

Steve, um, are you by any chance associated with Seawiscope? It kind of sounds as if you might be the optometrist highlighted on their web site as the developer.

If so, you really should disclose that here.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

Merek,

I think Steve Tan said that he "acquired it," being the SeawiscopeEY. One interpretation of that is that he owns the business. That could also be a disclosure. But maybe Steve Tan could elaborate. It is an interesting product.

SeaRat

 

[Thalassamania]

Have you tried these, they work for me

Dive Optx Mask Magnification Lenses

You can get the same sort of thing in many drug stores for about $10.00, they work great, I just use one in the left of my mask.

 

[Marek K]

I think Steve Tan said that he "acquired it," being the SeawiscopeEY. One interpretation of that is that he owns the business. That could also be a disclosure. But maybe Steve Tan could elaborate. It is an interesting product.

I know, I'm just getting a lot more cynical in my old age.

It's just that there's the same talk about seeing nudibranchs and pigmy seahorses in both SteveTan's post #53, and in Seawiscope's web site here.

The first-person optometrist writing on the web site clearly states he developed the device, not that he bought and uses it.

It annoys me when people don't disclose vested interests they have.

If I'm wrong, I sincerely apologize.

 

[Seawiscope]

Dear Folks,
I am the operator of Seawiscope and I have the SeawiscopeEY developed. I thank SteveTan for speaking out of his experience with SeawiscopeEY recently in this forum.

Stevetan is a friend of mine, and a fanatic of SeawiscopeEY. Stevetan got a SeawiscopeEY from us some time ago and he has obviously been excited with it. SteveTan has no finance interests in Seawiscope.

I am convinced that writing to this forum is effective to bring attention to concerned persons. Please do write to me if you wish to know more about of our line of products.

 

[Marek K]

You can get the same sort of thing in many drug stores for about $10.00, they work great, I just use one in the left of my mask.

I've toyed with the idea of doing the same thing, just to see if it would help me -- though like I said, I've got quite a lot of reading correction in my glasses, but haven't really needed it for diving yet.

But I've heard a lot of people have had problems with these things washing out with a flooded, rinsed, or cleared mask. It may just be an issue of making sure they're stuck on smoothly.

Might be a problem for me, since with -9.5 corrective mask lenses the inside surfaces are quite concave.

Your experience?