You’re talking about the “weird characters” in the cylinder corrections? They are minus signs in front of the zeros. The other commentator missed them as well.
Spherical corrections are given in diopters, which are rarely outside of +9 (very farsighted) to -9 (very nearsighted) with 0.25 precision: You will only see .00, .25, .50, or .75 after the decimal point in those fields.
Cylinder corrections are also in diopters with 0.25 precision, but are usually pretty small.
Axis is in integer degrees, so will be a number between 0 and 360. This is the angle at which the cylindrical correction should apply, to correct astigmatism.
You may encounter “Add” for bifocal/trifocal lenses, which is given in positive diopters with 0.25 precision.
“PD”, or “pupillary distance” is the spacing of your eyes, given in millimeters.
Once you know what should be in each of the fields, figuring out the handwriting is pretty straightforward.
There are five handwritten zeros on that script. 4 of them have horizontal strokes to the left of the zero, with that stroke connected to the zero. Two of those are minus signs, two are the crossbars from the tops of a “5”.
The fifth zero is in the left axis field, which does not have a horizontal stroke connected to the zero. If the doctor wrote all their zeros with that weird tail to the top left, why does that one zero lack that tail?
The answer is that they wrote all five zeros the same way, and four of them have deliberate horizontal strokes before them. Where those strokes aren’t from the fives, they can only be from minus signs.
I have never seen a cylinder correction of the opposite sign of the spherical correction: if one is negative, they are both negative.
Furthermore, I have never seen a positive spherical or cylindrical correction lacking a plus sign. If they intended a positive correction, they would have included an explicit “+” instead of nothing.
The axis numbers are -0.25, and -0.50.
When you can’t see out of the glasses you ordered from Zenni, this is why.
Have you considered CALLING your fucking optometrist and asking for clarification?
Edit: after reading your other replies in this post its clear you’re just trolling. Go get another eye exam, Mr. “Perfectly Stable Eyes.”
Have you not heard? Walmart is shutting down all of it’s health centers…
Thanks for the positive words though, all I need is lenses that aren’t scratched to hell and back.
You have a 3 year old prescription that you can’t parse. You need a new eye exam and new prescription. Walmart isn’t the problem here. You are.
God damn maybe they can’t afford it. Stfu
Oh come on, how many people do you expect to read that weird character as a zero? That’s not common Arabic numerals…
You’re talking about the “weird characters” in the cylinder corrections? They are minus signs in front of the zeros. The other commentator missed them as well.
Spherical corrections are given in diopters, which are rarely outside of +9 (very farsighted) to -9 (very nearsighted) with 0.25 precision: You will only see .00, .25, .50, or .75 after the decimal point in those fields.
Cylinder corrections are also in diopters with 0.25 precision, but are usually pretty small.
Axis is in integer degrees, so will be a number between 0 and 360. This is the angle at which the cylindrical correction should apply, to correct astigmatism.
You may encounter “Add” for bifocal/trifocal lenses, which is given in positive diopters with 0.25 precision.
“PD”, or “pupillary distance” is the spacing of your eyes, given in millimeters.
Once you know what should be in each of the fields, figuring out the handwriting is pretty straightforward.
I’ve already been educated. Apparently my eye doctor didn’t know how to write a fucking zero.
How am I supposed to know that weird Greek looking symbol is meant to be the Arabic numeral 0 ?
It looks absolutely nothing like a zero.
My bad, sorry I don’t know how to read chicken shit. Been wondering for years…
Your doctor does know how to write a zero. They did not write a zero. It’s not a “zero”. It’s a minus 0.25 and a minus 0.50.
If you don’t have those minus signs, the cylinder correction is going to double your astigmatism, not negate it.
Nope. Same handwriting, according to you, would yield…
-0 .5 -0
That’s how the doctor apparently wrote his zeroes.
There are five handwritten zeros on that script. 4 of them have horizontal strokes to the left of the zero, with that stroke connected to the zero. Two of those are minus signs, two are the crossbars from the tops of a “5”.
The fifth zero is in the left axis field, which does not have a horizontal stroke connected to the zero. If the doctor wrote all their zeros with that weird tail to the top left, why does that one zero lack that tail?
The answer is that they wrote all five zeros the same way, and four of them have deliberate horizontal strokes before them. Where those strokes aren’t from the fives, they can only be from minus signs.
I have never seen a cylinder correction of the opposite sign of the spherical correction: if one is negative, they are both negative.
Furthermore, I have never seen a positive spherical or cylindrical correction lacking a plus sign. If they intended a positive correction, they would have included an explicit “+” instead of nothing.
The axis numbers are -0.25, and -0.50.
When you can’t see out of the glasses you ordered from Zenni, this is why.