Aberration article is way too complex

I would like to pass a few comments on the recent pair of articles 'Understanding wavefront aberration' by Professor Charman. It is clear that the Professor indeed understands wavefront aberration. Sadly I and I expect the majority of readers of optician are not much further down the road after reading these articles. For reasons which I find hard to determine, the author feels that liberal use of mathematical formulae, often ambiguously typeset by this magazine, will assist the reader's grasp of the concepts he is trying to present.

I contend that at least 95 per cent of your readers will have been left confused by these formulae and most will have abandoned the article the instant the first double integral raised its head. The articles require a mathematical knowledge of at least undergraduate level, which most of your readers do not possess. I am not saying that none of your readers can understand it, but surely you should be aiming to inform the majority? Furthermore, those that do understand the mathematics would not have learnt much new from the article, I venture. If someone wrote an article containing numerous Latin phrases and complicated writing, you would no doubt tell them to re-write it in a simpler manner. The same should be done with this article and its mathematics.

This type of article is very suitable for a research journal, but doesn't deserve a place where it is using up space that could be used for articles that actually help us care for our patients or do our job in a better or more satisfying manner.

Mathematics has a place in optician, but only in the hands of authors skilled enough to use it to illuminate rather than to obscure.
Steven C Tilley
Stonehouse, Gloucestershire