A week ago, en route to our respective workplaces, Sui and I noticed a poster ad for Gunnar Optiks on the BART. Being an optometry student and optican (and thus being familiar to pretty much all the noteworthy lens and frame manufacturers; they like to indoctrinate early), I was surprised that she had not heard of these guys.
One workday Google search later, we found what they were offering: fashionable, Oakley-style glasses, catered to heavy computer and television users, designed to reduce eye strain over work/play marathons (1).
While their ad gave a good first impression, closer inspection by someone in the know didn’t fare quite as well. As Sui checked out the site, she started pausing the promotional videos every 10 seconds to debunk a misleading or outright false claim. According to her:
- Oakley-shaped “wrap-around” glasses do keep moisture around the eyes, but only slightly and the effects are minimal
- Shifting the focal point to be in front of your eyeballs does help reduce strain, something that’s already well-utilized in $10 reading glasses
- Tinting the lenses reduces glare, as sunglasses-makers have known for 50+ years
She poked a hole through the marketing and saw the remains of a shallow, unremarkable product. I suppose her optican sensibilities demanded Gunnar at least disclose more reasonably priced alternatives (these specialty glasses aren’t cheap) instead of dressing up decade-old techniques with fancy technological monikers. And to her credit, Sui wasn’t the only optometrist unimpressed.
That said, it’s rare to see Sui get so offended. A part of it came from Gunnar’s implication that their glasses were a solution to CVS, when it’s questionable whether they help the wearer’s vision at all. I think the bigger offense, though, was having an optometrist represent the product and shamelessly plug its “technology”; he cheapened Sui’s chosen profession, from that of an optical doctor to an overpriced lens peddler. After all, she’s studying in a top school in the UC Berkeley School of Optometry, so her indignation was probably justified.
Of course, in my field, it’s a sight too often seen in the shady underbelly of scamming, spammy, phishing “programmers”.
Ah, the high road less travelled.
- And yes, I was intrigued, as I usually am for anything even possibly ergonomic (↩)