> *However* I don't think I should have to read a book with this -- or
> any other magnifier. Do you? >>
>
> Judy
>
> I accept this as one of the unfortunate consequences of ageing. Ten years ago
> I would have had absolutely no problems with text or captions in this book.
> Now I have to wear glasses.
Really Peter, I can only assume you feel called upon to defend the error
of your country persons. Either that or the English edition of this book
is thicker than the American edition. I couldn't have read those
microscopic lines without a magnifier when I was 12. And I suspect that
if you think you wouldn't have had a problem 10 years ago you have
romanticized your youth. Nor do I have any problem with other books,
newspapers, magazines and legal documents, even the "fine print."
But a book that is written exactly as reference material, a text, to
impart information -- not as a zen experience of endurance -- has as its
*first* responsibility to be legible. (And I'll add that a sans serif
letter is *never* as legible in body copy as a serif letter, even if
substantial enough to be seen.)
> I've tried the headband magnifiers. They cost about ten times as much as a
> cheap of the rack pair of glasses and are not in my opinion either as
> comfortable or convenient in use. It is also very useful to be able to get
> different strengths of glasses for different tasks. So I hope others will find
> this hint useful.
We inferior biological specimens who use optical correction (I for
instance am near sighted in one eye, far sighted in the other -- yes I am
a very unique individual), are not helped by "off the rack" anything
glasses. My headband magnifier, by the way, cost $27. Seeing one's work
well and comfortably might even be worth $30.
Cheers,
Judy