1.	Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of IRIDEX Corporation (the "Company") have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States for interim financial information and pursuant to the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10-01 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments, considered necessary for a fair statement of the financial statements have been included.

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements and notes thereto, together with management's discussion and analysis of the Company's financial condition and results of operations, contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2011, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on March 25, 2011. The results of operations for the six month period ended July 2, 2011 are not necessarily indicative of the results for the year ending December 31, 2011 or any future interim period.

Recently Issued and Adopted Accounting Standards

In June 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued ASU 2011-05, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income. ASU 2011-05 allows an entity the option to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income, and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. In both choices, an entity is required to present each component of net income along with total net income, each component of other comprehensive income along with a total for other comprehensive income, and a total amount for comprehensive income. ASU 2011-05 eliminates the option to present the components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in stockholders' equity. It does not, however, change the items that must be reported in other comprehensive income or when an item of other comprehensive income must be reclassified to net income. ASU 2011-05 should be applied retrospectively. ASU 2011-05 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. Early adoption is permitted. We do not expect adoption of this standard to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

In December 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") 2010-29, Business Combinations (Topic 805): Disclosure of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for Business Combinations. ASU 2010-29 specifies that if a public entity presents comparative financial statements, the entity should disclose revenue and earnings of the combined entity as though the business combination(s) that occurred during the current year had occurred as of the beginning of the comparable prior annual reporting period only. The amendments in this update also expand the supplemental pro forma disclosures under Topic 805 to include a description of the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments directly attributable to the business combination included in the reported pro forma revenue and earnings. ASU 2010-29 is effective prospectively for business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2010. Unless the Company has a significant business combination, we do not expect adoption of this standard to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-28, Intangibles - Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts. ASU 2010-28 modifies Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test so that for reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts, an entity is required to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test if it is more likely than not based on an assessment of qualitative indicators that goodwill impairment exists. In determining whether it is more likely than not that goodwill impairment exists, an entity should consider whether there are any adverse qualitative factors indicating that impairment may exist. ASU 2010-28 was effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2010. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-6, Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements, which updates fair value measurement and disclosures, adding new requirements for disclosures for levels 1 and 2, separate disclosures and purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements relating to Level 3 measurements and clarification of existing fair value disclosures. This update was effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2009, except for the requirement to provide Level 3 activity of purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements on a gross basis, which was effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2010. Other than requiring additional disclosures, adoption of this new guidance did not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU 2009-13, Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements-a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force. ASU 2009-13 addresses the accounting for multiple-deliverable arrangements to enable vendors to account for products or services ("deliverables") separately rather than as a combined unit. Specifically, this guidance amends the criteria in the "Revenue Recognition - Multiple-Element Arrangements" subtopic of the Codification for separating consideration in multiple-deliverable arrangements. This guidance establishes a selling price hierarchy for determining the selling price of a deliverable, which is based on: (a) vendor-specific objective evidence; (b) third-party evidence; or (c) estimates. This guidance also eliminates the residual method of allocation and requires that arrangement consideration be allocated at the inception of the arrangement to all deliverables using the relative selling price method. In addition, this guidance significantly expands required disclosures related to a vendor's multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements. ASU 2009-13 is effective prospectively for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010, with the option to provide retrospective presentation for prior years. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows because we had VSOE of fair value established on most elements.