It definitely took a little longer for me to adapt to the "trapezoid."
I take them off when eating, sleeping and talking with people face to
face but keep them on otherwise.  Most of my time is in front of a
computer and they are always on then.

Is there a more common word to describe that effect?  I'm really
surprised that it is very common yet no one seemed to understand what I
meant when I described it.

I originally saw an optometrist next door to a buy-1-get-1-free place.
This was the first time I had my vision checked in many years.  This
was a very quick process and my eyes were not dilated.  He wrote the
perscription and I went next door to shop for frames.  The trapezoidal
problem bothered me immediately when I began looking at monitors,
paper, or anything else that was normally square or rectangular and
close up.  I went back to the store to talk to the optician and he made
some adjustments that didn't seem to do much, then checked the optical
center and said it was fine.  I then went back to the optometrist and
he spent more time with me.  He checked the glasses and immediately
said the optical center was off.  He then sat with me and constructed
some makeshift goggle glasses using an errector set looking collection
of lenses in a drawer.  This time he found my eyes to be very slightly
worse than originally found.  However, he said that if I was having
trouble adapting that I could still try a slightly weaker perscription.
When I looked through the makeshift glasses, however, the trapezoidal
effect was just as bad but the letters were not quite as crisp.  He
wrote this very slightly weaker perscription for me but I was not
really content.

On a recommendation, I then saw an opthamologist who had an entire team
of really sharp people working in a sort of assembly line.  One person
would dilate my eyes, another would show me slides.  The part the
doctor did himself involved shining bright lights into my pupils, which
I assume was to look for signs of disease and to talk with me a little
about my complaints of dry, itchy eyes which I really did have but
bringing it up caused the visit to fall under my insurance coverage.
The slides test was more thorough at this place but the perscription
was very similar to the stronger perscription that the optometrist had
measured on my return visit to him.  I tried to explain the trapezoidal
effect to my doctor but as I said, no one really seemed to be able to
relate to my description.  He asked to see my glasses and also found
the optical center to be off.  He also said the glasses were not nearly
large enough for the size and shape of my face.

He then recommended that I visit a "real" optical shop, which he just
so happened to own one of.  He said, "Even there, you will only find a
handful of frames that will be right for your size and shape but
they'll be able to help you with that better there."  This makes me
think that the doctor and his opticians were not really on the same
page about sizing.  The optician showed me several frames that were
mostly 18-20/49-50.  As you know, these are fairly common sizes and not
really much larger at all than the previous frame that the doctor had
condemned.  The doctor said it was important to get my pupils near the
center of the lens and admittedly, these frames do achieve that more.
If I get wider lenses than this for a wider frame, that will be
probably be less true.

I believe the perscription is accurate in that this perscription yields
the sharpest text/best focus.  If it could be off in some other way,
I'm not sure what to look for.

This is very contrary to what the opticians at the shop had to say.
They said, "Some people never get used to it and always hate wearing
glasses."  As you can imagine, this was a somewhat frustrating response
for me.  When I described how I felt, they said that if it was the
frames that bothered me they could do the exchange once as long as it
was within 60 days as that's what their agreement with the lab is.  (I
suddenly felt more foolish for going to the doctor's shop when I found
out they were outsourcing the lens making anyway.)  They said that if
it was just peripherally looking through the edge of the lens that some
distortion there is normal and that a larger lens would only make that
worse.

The opthamologist had emphasized the importance of optical center.
Does this mean the same thing?  Do you think he was wrong to say this
with my perscription?

The Silhouettes I'm looking at are drill-mounted.  They only have
titanium flexible temples and a bridge.

I remember the optician saying they could do different styles of the
Silhoettes in other sizes but that I would not be able to purchase the
matching tint clip if it wasn't a size they offered.  I didn't realize
she must have meant that they could actually make them to any size.

If I do get larger frames lenses that give me more peripheral on the
left and right outside, my eyes will be closer to the inside edge of
the lens than the outside edge of lens.  With my perscription, will the
distortion resulting from not looking through the center of the lens be
noticable?  Am I misunderstanding the manufacturing process?  Is *this*
the point of the "optical center"?

I found this chart: http://www.krspecs.com/abbe.html

In that chart, the Sola 1.53 actually has a higher abbe value than
Trivex (47 compared with 43).  I doubt I will have a choice in this
anyway, though.  I'm sure they will only offer one brand at a given
index value.  I will ask, though.  If this Sola is available, is there
any reason not to take it over the Trivex?

Also, I can't help but notice that the Trivex has a specific gravity of
1.11, which is much lighter than any of the others.  How is it that
Trivex is thicker than the others but still lighter?  ("Space
technology?")

I doubt this effects me.  My perscription is so light that weight
probably isn't a factor and the Sola 1.53 is only slightly heavier at
1.21.  It's just curious.

I have looked at the Silhouettes (and every other frame they carry that
is in a somewhat larger size) in the store.  What I'm asking here is
only the mechanics, not the aesthetics.

Am I understanding correctly:
*The edge of a drill-mount will be less noticeable than a plastic or
metal reflective frame.
* A drill-mount can be made in any size.  The shape of the lens will be
the same at any size as both dimensions are increased at the same rate.
* If I measure the width of my head from temple to temple, this number
should approximately match: eye size * 2 + bridge.

Thanks again for your replies.  It is very satisfying to begin to
understand this.  The topic was foreign to me and I'm never content to
treat something I'm spending a lot of time and money with as a black
box.