I've seen ads for these things all around, and I've even seen them for sale on ThinkGeek (if I were going to buy them anywhere, it would be there, if only for the GeekPoints). Apparently they're lenses that are meant to "relax" a person's eyes just enough to lighten any strain, but not so much as to lose focus (coincidentally, this is also the verbatim operating instructions for those "3D Hidden Pictures" that were big in the late 90's). Personally, I think the whole premise sounds unhealthy, considering that if one were to force the eyes to "unfocus" for long periods of gameplay or other screen viewing, one might "stick" his or her eyes in that "unfocused" state when the lenses are removed, which is just as bad as if one were to play for a long time with the eyes in a "hyperfocused" state.

But nothing touts success like experience. So, has anyone tried these "gamer glasses" and found them useful?

It sounds like a gimmick to me. Anyone who tells you that you need tinted shades to play games well is either lying or on crack. I suppose they do filter out some of the bright LCD lights (or something like that). Even then, the tint would ruin everything.

Apparently they're popular enough to have garnered imitators. I'm still not buying a pair without solid, independent consumer review.

They used to sell screen covers that went over CRTs for the same reason. It's pretty much medical fact that backlit screens cause eyestrain. How much strain varies by individual and the backlit screen. You can test this yourself by trying out a eInk screen, since there's no backlighting you should be able to read it essentially all day.

Now, I don't know if these glasses are any good, but the idea is to reduce the eyestrain associated with planting your ass in front of a computer all day. I know I don't need my glasses right away in the morning, but after starting to do computer work it's game over, I need them pretty quickly (same if I were to watch TV on a Saturday morning or whatever).

I remember those "glare-reducing" screens, and that they were really only good with the "flatscreen" type CRTs. I'm a trauma surgeon, not an ophthalmologist, so my knowledge of the eye and its parts only covers the basics. "If it's not connected to the brain via the optic nerve, it's probably not seeing anything", that sorta thing. I'd ask one for his or her opinion, but I'd probably be charged a "consult fee" or some shit like that. Or they'd make me sign some kind of "Don't quote me on this, because I don't want you telling someone you got medical advice from me and getting me in trouble for 'malpractice'" form.

Is that Perry Cox as your avatar

Who else could it be Penny?

Its taken me God knows how long to notice that >:-(

Cox is the greatest.

One of the things that separate me and my dad as doctors is that I can watch hospital-centric shows without focusing on all the little technical and procedural errors. My dad's always on about "You don't do that when prepping a thoracotomy!".

While I don't have any personal experience with this sort of product your first step should be to improve the conditions of your area--the cause of eye strain in the first place--rather than merely treating the symptoms as an after-thought. It's not just bright light alone (although that can be a factor), it's also about contrast. I'm no doctor or anything, but here's my understanding of how it works.

A lot of people who say they have difficulty staring at a screen for a long period of time are using it without sufficient lighting. Some deliberately exclude all other light (arguing that this gives a cinema-style experience) while others imagine the monitor to be sufficient. The problem here is that monitors are not intended to act as light sources. The backlight makes the image on the screen appear vibrant but only a pitiful amount of light actually spills out into the room. Using a monitor without sufficient light from other sources makes you perceive the screen to have harsher contrast against its surroundings, especially if attempting to read dark text on a light background. Having other light sources will not make the screen appear any brighter (because it is already perfectly lit from within) but it will make the surrounding area closer to the brightness of the screen, reducing the harshness of the contrast.

The goal is to view the screen in an area that is evenly well-lit such that you perceive the monitor to be about as bright as its surroundings (adjusting the monitor's brightness and contrast as necessary). Natural light is great (if available) while fluorescent lights should be avoided, but either way the idea is to have evenly-distributed, natural-looking light like you would have in an outside environment. Lighting the whole room won't hurt but what matters is the parts of the room that are within your field of vision when staring at the screen because that is what your eyes pick up on. Under properly-lit conditions dark text on light backgrounds is preferable when given the choice on forums and such; dark backgrounds should be avoided because they create harsh contrast even in an otherwise well-lit room.

This improvement will only go so far (especially if you are already at the point of needing glasses for some purposes) but this will help reduce the perceived harshness of the screen, and until we can all afford 1080p e-ink displays or whatever this is a step worth taking. By all means add something like Gunnars to the situation later on if you think that will help but do sort out the lighting situation first.

...and that's my completely unscientific explanation of how things work posted at 1 AM under the aforementioned lighting conditions. Enjoy. :)

EDIT: also worth noting is that you want to avoid having glare or reflection from any sort of light on the screen as this will mess with the perceived contrast. Unfortunately achieving this can be a bit of a challenge if you have the misfortune of possessing a trendy glossy screen.

I've never had the inclination to play a game or watch a movie with the lights off. I'm not "scared of the dark", and no amount of illuminationless...ness is going to enhance any "mood" I might have when enjoying digital entertainment. I have CFL bulbs, but they're in shaded/painted glass globe things that transmute the harsh fluorescent light to a "warmer, more incandescent" sort of light.

The fact that my eyes are tired after any sort of "session" of screen viewing has less to do with the fact that I'm planted in front of said screen all day for hours on end, and more to do with the fact that I work staff shift hours, which change week to week, and sometimes in the middle of the week. Couple that with "heavy traffic" periods (I just got through with idiots from Spring Break, and now Prom Season is upon us), and you have one overworked pair of optical orbs.