Q&A: Acclaimed Designer Discusses Past, Present, Future of Progressives

​In August, we caught up with Dr. Michael Morris, a nationally acclaimed lens designer and pivotal player in the development phase of Unity Via Progressive Lenses. In the engaging conversation, Dr. Morris dished on everything from the development, wearer trials, and innovation behind Unity Via Progressives to the current state of progressive lenses to where he sees progressives going in the future. Following is the interview in its entirety. 

The following Q&A represents statements and opinions of Dr. Michael Morris, a consultant to VSP.  They do not necessarily represent the opinions of VSP.

Q: Tell us a little about your background, how you got into designing progressive lenses.
 
A: I became an optometrist because I loved optics. That started when I was a kid.  I was seriously into astronomy and loved anything to do with telescopes. When I went to college, I became a physics major so I could play with optics.  One thing led to another and I went to optometry college, then to the School of Aerospace Medicine where I worked in laser research.  While I was there, I started designing spectacle lenses as a hobby. That led to a job at a lens manufacturing company nearly 30 years ago and I've been involved with progressive lens design ever since.

​Q: How much have progressive lenses changed since you got started?

A: In the beginning they were a complete mystery to almost everyone and very few patients wore them.  I dispensed my first pair of progressives in about 1980 and it was a disaster. I was still a student but the supervising optometrist basically told me to ask a company sales rep for help.  Then, starting in the mid-80s, we got the first progressives that worked really well.  The new lenses made a really big jump in performance and success.  But those lenses were limited because they were semi-finished. There was no way to customize them for the individual patient. That changed roughly twenty years ago when freeform production machinery was adapted to produce progressives on demand for each patient.  That freed lens designers to imagine new ways to improve progressive lenses.

There was no way to customize them for the individual patient. That changed roughly 20 years ago when freeform production machinery was adapted to produce progressives on demand for each patient."

Q: What are some of those improvements
​
A: For one thing, we can offer specialized designs.  It wouldn't have been cost-effective using semi-finished progressives, so the choices for doctor and patient were really limited.  For another thing, we could tune the shape of the prescription surface to get closer to the prescribed dioptric powers for every patient.  In the old days, if your prescription was close to the edge of the power range covered by a particular progressive lens blank, you didn't get very good clarity to the sides of the far viewing zone and often the effective add power ​wasn't quite right. 

If we use freeform design and processing correctly, that problem can be solved.  A third thing that was a big improvement was taking into account the amount of lens surface available in the specific frame that a patient chose, as it fit on her face.

​Q: It's interesting you use the word "freeform" instead of "digital."  Why is that?

when the first freeform progressive lenses were being offered, one company decided to make it sound like their lenses had some new magic that nobody else was offering."

A: We used digital computers from the very beginning to design progressives, but when the first freeform progressive lenses were being offered, one company decided to make it sound like their lenses had some new magic that nobody else was offering.  Freeform was the term already adopted in the broader world of optics and I prefer to use plain language.  We make lenses that have freely designed surface shapes and those shapes are continuously varying, almost the opposite of digital which after all refers to something that we can count on our fingers, or even comprised of just ones and zeroes.

Q: We will try to stay away from hype then.
 
A: Good, there's enough going around.

Q: What do you see happening with progressives going forward?
 
A: I'd like to think we will continue to innovate and I would love if we could find a very easy way to identify patient characteristics that are more suited to specific kinds of progressive designs.  There is plenty of work to be done.  But with continuing consolidation in our industry I see less pressure to innovate and more pressure to cut costs. I think you will see some companies that were touting reasons for using progressive front surfaces in "dual add" progressives shifting away from that approach.

I think you will see some companies that were touting reasons for using progressive front surfaces in "dual add" progressives shifting away from that approach."

​Q: Why do you say that?
 
A: Because in all but a few extreme cases there is no optical advantage to splitting the add power between front and back surfaces.  Spectacle lenses are too thin to provide an extra degree of freedom using that approach.  

One of the early ones claimed special advantage using split adds. There is no requirement that a patent be completely correct, and those patents were not, at least when they asserted that the claimed invention was the only way to get that result.  A good progressive lens designer can reproduce the result of a dual add progressive on a single surface, throughout the heart of the prescription range, meaning for the majority of patients.

in all but a few extreme cases there is no optical advantage to splitting the add power between front and back surfaces."

Q: Let's shift to your work with Unity Lenses.  How long have you been a consultant to the company?
 
A: It's going on six years now, but I've known the company a lot longer.  I was a VSP provider nearly 30 years ago and over the years I gave occasional lectures about progressive lens design to optometry students hosted by VSP.
 
Q: What kind of work have you done with Unity Lenses?
 
A: Quite a range of things. Most of them have been related to how they stack up against those from other lens companies.  For example, I designed protocols for clinical trials of lens designs and analyzed the data from those trials.
 
Q: Are you the designer of any of Unity Progressives?

A: No, although I have participated in the development process of Unity Via Progressives.  Until quite recently, I also had other clients in the ophthalmic industry and it would have been too complicated if I provided one of them with proprietary designs. 

For another thing, Unity already had very competent designers and I wouldn't have been able to add very much.  What I did do was sit with the designers to discuss and review proposals and results.

Q: How familiar are you with the Unity Via Progressives?
 
A: I'm very familiar with the designs and their characteristics.  I don't have a product manager's familiarity. For example, I'd have to look up what materials are offered, what the base curves are, prescription range, etc.  But yes, I'm very familiar with them.
 
Q: Are you aware that some other lens companies have been saying Unity Via Progressives are "old technology? "
 
A: Well, I heard it from VSP.  I don't go out and talk to VSP’s providers, so I'll take your word for it.

I was present as the designs were created, tested, refined and finalized.  We weren't behind when doing that work and the designs have not been surpassed."

​Q: It's true.  What do you think of that?
 
A: It's wrong. Maybe some companies are using designs that are more complicated because they have a progressive front surface, but that's likely to change.  In my opinion that just makes them more susceptible to manufacturing defects because the alignment between surfaces must be incredibly precise.  Why go to that trouble when you can get the same thing on a single surface?  

Q: But you didn't really address the question.  Do Unity Via Progressives represent the state of the art?
 
A: Yes.  For one thing I was present as the designs were created, tested, refined and finalized.  We weren't behind when doing that work and the designs have not been surpassed.

Unity Via Progressives have all the important innovations." 

I think we still can do better, and we will come up with better products, but Unity Via Progressives have all the important innovations.  They take into account the full lens configuration including frame and position of wear and produce a surface that was mathematically tuned to produce the best match of the patient's prescription over wide areas of the lens, as it is positioned inside the frame. 

I can tick off various technical feats such as custom inset, custom corridor length, ray-trace optimization.  I also am aware that Unity Via’s designers have a very sophisticated understanding of the way the position of objects of regard in three-dimensional space interact with a wearer's head and eye movements and they put that knowledge into the way they distribute add power over the entire lens. 

I haven't seen anything new and superior from another lens provider that would be a big leap forward, but I have seen a lot of hype."

These aren't marketing terms, they are the kind of things that lens designers talk about.  I haven't seen anything new and superior from another lens provider that would be a big leap forward, but I have seen a lot of hype
​
Q: So are you saying that every lens company is making progressives that are more or less equivalent?
 
A: Not at all.  I'm saying that technology itself is no longer the key to innovation.  It's understanding the patient and how presbyopes actually react to lens designs.  Unity Via Progressives do a very good job of that. Some other companies may fall short.

Q: What would cause a progressive lens to fall short?

A: The single biggest failing of any progressive, since that first disaster I had back in 1980, is not delivering enough of what most patients want in a progressive: the prescribed add power.  It is an easy trap to fall into, particularly for mathematicians and computer programmers.  You start to think of people as mathematical models and you can lose sight of the human.

You start to think of people as mathematical models and you can lose sight of the human."

Q: I don't follow you.
 
A: Here's why this is a problem. Most progressives barely reach the prescribed add power and roll off to the sides and at the top, often at the bottom too.  The actual area of full add power can be really small.  This is why optometrists often "bump the add" for progressives. Now that we are individually optimizing progressives, it's tempting to set up the computer to just barely reach prescribed add power in the "as worn" position, not as a lensometer sees it but as the eye sees it. 

Now that we are individually optimizing progressives, it's tempting to set up the computer to just barely reach prescribed add power in the "as worn" position, not as a lensometer sees it but as the eye sees it. 

The problem is twofold.  First, you use up all your tolerance.  If the glasses aren't exactly worn like you thought, you might never reach full add power.  Also, you don't know what the doctor was thinking when she wrote the prescription.  She might have been prescribing an add with respect to the last pair of spectacles, which may not have been designed for minimum ray-traced add power.  When I see a progressive ordered for a 2.00 add that measures 1.75 on a lensometer, I get skeptical really quick.   Yet that is really common.

Q: How are Unity Via Progressive Lenses different?

A: I really like the common-sense approach that is used.  First, the designs are created to have a substantial area of full add power.  Second, the optimization is limited so that it doesn't go to extremes. It corrects for oblique errors but won't let the add power mindlessly go to a value that is likely to fail unless everything is perfect.

​Q: It's also being said that Unity Via Progressives are just old designs under a new name. True or false?

A: False, of course.  That might work for a small regional laboratory, but not VSP.  Anyway, I was there, I participated in the prolonged development process and for some of the designs I presided over decisions to make modifications to the original concept based on the results of my clinical trials.  The Unity Via Progressives designs cannot be obtained anywhere else. 

The Unity Via Progressives designs cannot be obtained anywhere else." 

Q: Do you have any advice for optometrists who might consider switching to Unity Via Progressives from other products?
 
A: I can vouch for the clinical effectiveness of the lenses, but of course only you can judge how effective they will be in your practice.  I always recommend if you are going to try a product, try enough to provide a valid representative sample. Time and again I've observed that any given patient or subject in a study can react to the same lens in totally different ways depending on time of day, stress level, light level or prior lens exposure.  Adaptation is a real phenomenon, and progressives present image patterns that can produce adaptation lasting many days.  I'd try them on at least twenty patients and observe the results over a period of time, at least a month or two before forming any final opinions.  I expect you will find that Unity Via Progressives work quite well for you.

---

Michael Morris, OD

Michael Morris O.D. studied mathematics and physics at Michigan State University and graduated from the Illinois College of Optometry in 1982.  His career has taken him to the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, the University of Texas and several spectacle lens companies.  Beginning in about 1990 Dr. Morris became involved in spectacle lens design, resulting in dozens of patents for progressive lenses and related technologies.  He has been a consultant to VSP since 2013.