I've noticed a few people lately jumping on a bandwagon that looks like they're falling for a scam.
The idea is that looking at a computer screen for a long time causes eye strain because those have blue light in them and blue light causes eye strain... which some companies conveniently sell blue-light-filtering glasses to solve.
In the cases that I know in real life instead of YouTube, these are the same people who act like I'm strange for not keeping my monitor brightness up close to its maximum. In one case, one of them had a monitor that I could see at the same time as the western windows in the afternoon, and her monitor was literally brighter than a sunny sky, so she was replicating conditions that a lot of people put on sunglasses for (when they go outside and can't choose the brightness level).
I turn my monitor brightness down and have no eye strain. They keep theirs up and have eye strain... which they say is not because of the brightness but because the extremely bright light they're unnecessarily staring at isn't yellow enough.
Where is the idea that the problem is neutral white light's blue component instead of its brightness, and thus the its solution is shifting light sources toward yellow, coming from?
Nobody ever makes this claim about natural daylight, just for the same neutral white light when it's generated inside, which means it can't really be about the light itself. And back when nearly all inside lights were yellow (including not only candles & torches but also incandescent bulbs, the things that make photographs taken inside look like everything's coated in motor oil), people always brought in neutral white daylight as much as they could because it was preferred over the yellow inside light. For that matter, when people design low-light environments without computer monitors to look right at, to make them relaxing or at least non-stressful & non-straining, the low-light color schemes of choice have always been blue-themed (including lots of purple & green but avoiding or minimizing red, orange, & yellow).
In short, this idea that neutral white light is bad because it includes blue and blue is bad has never come up in any real-life situation I know of other than when there was this one particular product to sell for it, and directly contradicts everything else that's observable to me about eye strain and light color in other contexts, not just for myself but for other people as well.
Is there some piece of research behind this, which might have been valid for some obscure corner of the science of optics but is getting inflated into a general rule beyond what it really said? Or did manufacturers just invent a problem to tell people they have so they could sell the solution to it?
The idea is that looking at a computer screen for a long time causes eye strain because those have blue light in them and blue light causes eye strain... which some companies conveniently sell blue-light-filtering glasses to solve.
In the cases that I know in real life instead of YouTube, these are the same people who act like I'm strange for not keeping my monitor brightness up close to its maximum. In one case, one of them had a monitor that I could see at the same time as the western windows in the afternoon, and her monitor was literally brighter than a sunny sky, so she was replicating conditions that a lot of people put on sunglasses for (when they go outside and can't choose the brightness level).
I turn my monitor brightness down and have no eye strain. They keep theirs up and have eye strain... which they say is not because of the brightness but because the extremely bright light they're unnecessarily staring at isn't yellow enough.
Where is the idea that the problem is neutral white light's blue component instead of its brightness, and thus the its solution is shifting light sources toward yellow, coming from?
Nobody ever makes this claim about natural daylight, just for the same neutral white light when it's generated inside, which means it can't really be about the light itself. And back when nearly all inside lights were yellow (including not only candles & torches but also incandescent bulbs, the things that make photographs taken inside look like everything's coated in motor oil), people always brought in neutral white daylight as much as they could because it was preferred over the yellow inside light. For that matter, when people design low-light environments without computer monitors to look right at, to make them relaxing or at least non-stressful & non-straining, the low-light color schemes of choice have always been blue-themed (including lots of purple & green but avoiding or minimizing red, orange, & yellow).
In short, this idea that neutral white light is bad because it includes blue and blue is bad has never come up in any real-life situation I know of other than when there was this one particular product to sell for it, and directly contradicts everything else that's observable to me about eye strain and light color in other contexts, not just for myself but for other people as well.
Is there some piece of research behind this, which might have been valid for some obscure corner of the science of optics but is getting inflated into a general rule beyond what it really said? Or did manufacturers just invent a problem to tell people they have so they could sell the solution to it?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3h5fXkF
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire