It should not be. A good QRcode reader will work under sub-optimal conditions and make a good guess about what you want to do with the data; if it recognizes it as a map link, for example, it should open it in your preferred map/nav application.
Some apps, sometimes on some phones, are just crap, though.
The problem with most implementations is that the code itself is bad - too small, contains too much data meaning the granularity of the code is too high, and most often, printed or reproduced badly. It’s easy to screw up the way the image file is managed and get anti-aliased (soft) edges that make recognition much harder; a printed code has to be absolutely razor-sharp and two and ONLY two colors.
I have captured QRcodes from passing trucks WHEN the code is large (a foot square), relatively low in granularity, well-printed, and not dirty. They were designed to accommodate such demanding applications.
As with so many potentially useful tools, QRcodes are all too often implemented in ignorance and carelessness and with the wrong aims in mind. Used well, they are exceptionally useful.
Skip down to about the 5th paragraph for the relevant info. The first half is just news about the death of Microsofts lame attempt to create an alternative to QR codes.
One I saw the other day had a silvery-looking circle printed in the middle of the grid, covering about 4 squares. What was that about? Is it a new format, or did some graphic designer just decide to make it prettier, and rendered it useless in the process?
This is one of the more useful deployments of the QR code that i’ve heard of.
It’s not that the technology itself is flawed; it’s that it has mainly been used by people who are more interested in grabbing the technology than in actually doing something useful with it.
I think this is pretty cool. You can see a video of the process here.
QR codes have heavy error-correction built into them, and so are readable even with large chunks missing. Some designers choose to “spend” some of this tolerance on overlaying artwork. The code stays readable as long as conditions are good and they didn’t overdo it. It’s no problem if just four pixels were missing.
The problem is not with the scanner. The scanner worked fine. The problem is that in most applications a QR Code is an overly complex and time consuming solution to the problem at hand.
I’m not saying there aren’t good uses for them. Just that using them to compress and obfuscate a 20-character URL is not one of them.
Show me an ad for a the new Mercedes and show a URL of mercedes.com/newcar and I might go there (and might remember that URL later). Show me a QR Code instead and there’s almost no change I’m going to find and start a new app just to get there and if I don’t do it in those three seconds there is really no chance.
IIRC it used the Sony “EyeToy” which was basically the forerunner of the Kinect.
Since pretty much all laptops have a webcam attached and all the nextgen consoles have the camera as an optional (albeit barely optional in the XBone’s case) accessory I’d be astonished if the concept stays forgotten forever. In fact, given a few well established TCGs already have video game adaptations (Magic seems to be going the “yearly update” route of some sports games)…
Other than both portable consoles (the Vita and the 3DS) coming with built in AR software (and cards for use in it), I haven’t really seen much use of the technology, though.
Speaking of games (and more on topic); I’ve noticed that Nintendo includes QR codes that can be read by the 3DS in its newsletters and adverts. Presumably so you can view 3D videos or download demos straight to the console (which wouldn’t work with paper ads or emails). The Vita might do the same (since it also has a camera) but I haven’t noticed any QR codes in Sony’s emails.
I’m also reminded of the upcoming next-gen title “Watch_Dogs”, which had QR codes visible in some of its trailers (more specifically on masks waiters at a bar were wearing - people who took the time to scan one from the footage found themselves at a fake website for the in-universe company). As far as advertising goes, it at least fit the game’s theme.
I’ve seen codes made up of objects, instead of black squares. e.g. search for qr code made from objects. Usually these codes are big (0.5 m length), so I guess it makes up for it.
Someone on another thread mentioned using QR codes in business cards, which removes the need for OCR software. This is the only useful application I’ve seen. Most are just a link to the URL beside them.
The problem with QR codes is that they are not human-readable - which means that if they ever became properly mainstream, they would be subject to significant abuse - guerilla overstickering of QR codes on posters, signs, etc. - to redirect user to content other than the original.
I’m sure it happens right now, only nobody really cares.
And you have added nothing to the OP other than to be snarky and complain that I am somehow wasting everyone’s time. Your response is offensive and serves no purpose; we have discussed many times here that telling people that they should have looked it up somewhere else is rude.
No-one complained about you; the complaint was about the person who didn’t look it up. And, if you could be bothered to get your posters straight, you’d notice that i wasn’t the one who told her to look it up.
And while some nebulous “we” might have indeed concluded that telling someone to look it up is rude, there are others who have consistently maintained that looking it up is the appropriate thing to do for some questions. The rules of the board even state that questions amenable to a simple, straightforward factual answer should be directed to internet search engines before being brought here.
As i said earlier it’s not a really big deal; i just don’t understand why it happens. Broomstick’s reasoning, that it provides an answer for everyone, is not especially compelling, given that 100 people each looking up the answer for themselves still would have taken less time than in took her to get an answer in this thread. Also, if you’re so keen on helping others, why not look it up yourself and then provide the answer in the thread? You then save time and get to help people. Everyone wins!
I’d never even considered this, but i think it’s a really good point. There is literally no way that a person looking at the code can tell where it’s going to take them. The abuse could be as benign as guerrilla marketing, or as problematic as directing users to a phishing site.
Not a great deal different from other scams other than that the initial info-entry is not human-readable. Most readers have several layers of settings about what to do with parsed codes; setting URLs to display before going to the destination is trivial.
This isn’t much different, either, from any other hey-lookit-me scam - if you’re going to scan questionable sources on street flyers or the like, you get what you deserve. The only serious security hole I see is the above-mentioned replacing a legitimate code with a bogus or buggered one, and that should be evident even to a casual eye.
BTW, another place we’ve found these very useful is for trade show displays; a board is posted at each corner of the booth with links straight to each product’s web page. When it’s busy, I’ve had clients report a longer line of people capturing these codes than waiting to talk to a rep.
FWIW, I agree with mhendo and wish most posters would take them time to look things up first instead of treating the SDMB like their own personal search engine. If you don’t know what X is, joining a discussion about X without taking the 10 seconds to Google it first is a waste of everyone else’s time.
