Here I'll give you a "real world hyperlink": print the damn URL in English so that I can remember it if I don't have my phone handy. If you're running a print ad you can afford a short snappy URL. Bonus, I can even use it on my laptop that doesn't have a QR code app! Or any other browser for that matter!
The main problem I have with QR codes is that humans can't read them. Therefore, they will be relegated forever to the sphere of computerish heiroglyphics that normal people will always ignore, because they have no obvious real world relevance. By way of contrast, most of the old EAN barcodes have the number printed under them, so a human can see what they encode when the barcode scanner breaks. QR codes, not so easy.
As suggested by another commenter, decide on some way of making the URL easy to OCR, perhaps by surrounding it with targeting sentinels and using a standard font. I mean, if Google Goggles can OCR text on a menu or poster in real time... a QR code is just making things complicated.
Also, let me tell you this really great joke: CueCat.
> Here I'll give you a "real world hyperlink": print the damn URL in English so that I can remember it if I don't have my phone handy.
Provide both then, because typing a URL is a pain on most mobiles, especially urls more than 5 characters.
> If you're running a print ad you can afford a short snappy URL.
What sense would it make? You have an existing brand and an existing site, why have to create a new brand and a new site just to link to that?
> Therefore, they will be relegated forever to the sphere of computerish heiroglyphics that normal people will always ignore, because they have no obvious real world relevance.
Japan and Korea demonstrate how absolutely incorrect you are.
> By way of contrast, most of the old EAN barcodes have the number printed under them, so a human can see what they encode when the barcode scanner breaks. QR codes, not so easy.
Wait that has no relevance whatsoever to the previous half of the paragraph, you said "normal people" would always ignore QRCodes, but anyone can recognize a barcode and knows (at least roughly) what it's about. QRCode will reach that ubiquity (as I mentioned, they already have in Japan and Korea for instance), and by that time children will only have to learn about them once.
> I mean, if Google Goggles can OCR text on a menu or poster in real time... a QR code is just making things complicated.
Google Goggles can attempt to do that with all the power of Google behind it. Just about any low-power device with a camera can recognize, read, fix (qrcode embeds significant amount of redundancy for error recovery) and decode a qrcode.
> Provide both then, because typing a URL is a pain on most mobiles, especially urls more than 5 characters.
If people are already running up against 5000 SMS/month limits on their phones, I'd wager that they can spend 20 keypresses typing in a URL for something interesting. Frankly, it's probably the same cognitive load as finding the QR decoder app, lining up a good shot, waiting for the white balance and focus to settle, hitting the shutter button, ...
> What sense would it make? You have an existing brand and an existing site, why have to create a new brand and a new site just to link to that?
Don't understand your point. I'm talking about making a short URL redirecting to whatever the QR code points at, maybe even off the company's existing domain. E.g., http://acme.com/foo
I can't speak to QR code usage in Japan or Korea, I just remember seeing them used in CS course material at my college and none of my fellow students ever used them. Those were real geeks, and they weren't even interested enough to try.
> Wait that has no relevance whatsoever to the previous half of the paragraph, you said "normal people" would always ignore QRCodes, but anyone can recognize a barcode and knows (at least roughly) what it's about.
There's a distinction between recognition, and being able to use them. As far as recognition goes very few non-techy people know what a QR code even does, because there is no obvious indication that it contains a URL. My point was that barcodes usually have the numbers below them and that (IMO) facilitated both consumers and cashiers understanding that it just contains a product number, as opposed to being the Evil Mark of Satan that the red beam reads. It is a more transparent system. I know it seems weird, but for non-geeks, being able to see what is going on is an important step in not demonizing new technology.
> Google Goggles can attempt to do that with all the power of Google behind it.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure all the OCR is done client-side. And what's your point? A QR code containing a URL requires a device with a network connection to provide anything of immediate value.
>Bonus, I can even use it on my laptop that doesn't have a QR code app! Or any other browser for that matter!
hmmm, hmmm, well .. you actually can use QR codes from your laptop - and - any other browser (that supports flash, as the HTML5 webcam API is not yet ready) - i know this, as i created it myself - it's called http://miniqr.com/reader.php (with some paid help from http://www.peterelst.com/)
I personally would find it much easier to type in a url on my laptop. Using a laptops camera for a QR code is very awkward, you have to orientate it correctly when you can't see the screen, possibly have to hit a key at the same time.
One useful way to use QR codes on Web sites is for downloading mobile apps. Instead of copying the URL to your device, or searching through the Market/App Store, you can just scan the QR code from off the screen, and you're right at the app you need to download.
CueCat certainly comes to mind. The difference, of course is that this hardware is akready wdespread, and portable. The idea of having that thing by your desktop computer to read codes vs. Urls you could type in was pretty lame. On the other hand, same deal with this - agreed I'd rather simply type in an address.
Security wise, this is the ultimate URL obfuscation. I could go around sticking stickers over everyone elses QR codes to send you all to my virus/spam/phishing kingdom, right?
While I agree that having a URL that you can read is better, I think 'relegated forever to the sphere of computerish heiroglyphics that normal people will always ignore' is a little strong. In Japan they've been using them for nigh on a decade and general 'non-technical' population are perfectly comfortable with them.
Domain names and paths are shocking heiroglyphics, but some weird square with static in it that means nothing at all to a human at first glance is comfy and familiar? I disagree.. I see a lot more URLs out there than QR codes, and just about anyone is okay with typing them in (albeit to google).
> As suggested by another commenter, decide on some way of making the URL easy to OCR, perhaps by surrounding it with targeting sentinels and using a standard font.
It'd be a lot easier just to print the URL under the QR code, exactly the way people do for EAN barcodes.
You are actually right, this ancient technology is doomed to be superceded soon by OCR, but it's a fun thing for the moment. It's a fad, it's gonna make its circle.
If there's advantage to their use it's the ability to be included, accidentally or not in photos and videos of people passing by.
Mashable is kind of shameless with the "advertorials" lately aren't they?
I said about QR codes on Twitter a while ago:
"QR codes: like using a megaphone to seduce someone. The ugliest, stupidest, most useless (and used less) tech in a while."
Background:
I worked in the music business for a while, and we always tried to be at the forefront of trends. Because of the position we were in, where we were able to market through technology with built-in lead generation that didn't cost us anything (radio, television, PR, movies, etc), it was a good way to test a technology with a lot of people early on.
They are inelegant, ugly, and scream of self-justification from people more infatuated by technology they understand (badly) rather than use.
Reminds me of other "mobile marketing" trends, i.e.: ringback tones, ringtones, video ringtones, and anything RIM tries with the music business (i.e., thumbplay). And the Motorola Rokr.
You think they're ugly? They've always reminded me of abstract expressionism, I enjoy seeing them.
But I agree with you that they haven't seemed catch on, I think they're about as enticing as a TV ad flashing a Facebook Page URL for its product or marketing campaign during its last 3 seconds.
I think they each have their strenghts. A QR code allows immediacy and loudness, it's more spontaneous and fun. There's a mystery to it because it can't be read by humans. A URL can be understood and remembered. It depends on what you're trying to do with the design. I wouldn't say a QR code is a substitute for a URL, it's more of an alternative. And it can be more than a URL.
I've been anti-QR code for a while—partly just because I like playing devil's advocate—but mainly because I see little benefit and a lot of friction to use "in the real world"
Now, please, someone on HN who isn't a QR-preneur tell me a story of how a QR code in the wild made your life better ...
This was a timely article as I recently had a fun time playing devil's advocate regarding QR codes in a friend's start up idea. She insists that they are a useful, convenient, and a big trend. I countered that they require too much effort and precision to be mainstream in their current incarnation. While the promised convenience sounds great (which was basically her argument), the current implementation does not live up to that promise.
While in Las Vegas, recently, she mentioned that she went to an art gallery that had QR codes on the placards for paintings that were for sale. One could scan the code and be taken to the gallery's website where you could then purchase a print. Prints cost in the range of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. Who goes to an art gallery in Las Vegas to walk out with a few bookmarks so they can spend a thousand dollars at home? It's a use case with lots of cool factor and wouldn't-it-be-awesome-if's, but that does not pan out with real, normal humans.
I was at Google IO this past May with 5,000 other nerds. I spent much of the time walking around, talking to people, and figuring out whose brain I wanted to pick further. On our admission badge was a QR code that attendees could opt-in to having all your contact information on using a checkbox on the Google IO registration page. I had opted in for this. What do you think the primary method of exchanging contact info was that weekend?
You guessed it.
Business cards. Only one person asked to scan my QR code, but this was after he asked for my business card first (I ran out). The rest of time, I logged email addresses and names in my phone or wrote my name and email on a piece of paper.
QR codes are a flop. I know this because I was in a room with 5,000 fellow nerds for a weekend, in 2011, and almost none of us cared to use it.
How can you be the hot new tech if the nerds don't care to use you?
> It could also be that they just aren't being implemented in a very intelligent way that makes them easy for people (or that the nerds are wrong–gasp! :)
I agree. They are not implemented in an intelligent way which makes them clumsy and painful to use.
My point about nerds is that us nerds are much more likely to live with pain to use fun, new tech. And as far as my experience from Google IO and my day-to-day work life, it doesn't seem to be the case here.
I've notice I've been using my business cards less and less over the years. Nowadays, it's more common for me to have the other people simply type-in their information directly into my iPhone.
Saves me having to open safari and type in long url (better spel it right too). Im a huge fan of getting stuff done faster so if its cuts out a step Im all over it. But Ill admit that QR tech has a some resistance ahead of itself before people get used to it.
Ill agree though that many QR codes annoy me when it just goes to a home page. staples.com is not difficult for anyone to type in...
Im sure there is some character count threshold for the average user where a QR code would be worth the effort of opening the scanner app and scanning it rather than typing in a URL.
Then again there is placement, Im not going to be able to scan a QR code on a freeway billboard or on a car going by but on a subway or bus advert where Im already stuck in a spot for 10-15 mins and probably already have my phone out is great placement. Advertisers and QR codies have to be smart otherwise it will turn people off and it becomes just another thing in our face.
I've used QR codes to exchange contact information with people at conferences, and found it to be the most efficient means to go from meeting someone to having their email address in my phone.
Riding the tram, there was an ad of sth. interesting sticked to the door. The URL and a QR code were printed at the bottom. Instead of opening the browser and typing in the URL on the shaky train I fired up the Goggles app (home screen), pointed it to the code and about 2 seconds and one button later the page was loading in my browser.
Given an URL and a QR code above I would always choose to use the QR code just because it's much easier than using the tiny on-screen keyboard of the smartphone. QR codes should not try to replace an URL but rather be an alternative to typing it in. You could compare that to whatever.com (not hyperlinked, type in/copy paste) vs. http://whatever.com/ (hyperlinked, one click).
I agree completely. And if the Barcode Scanner app came standard (or, better yet, if the normal camera app could read QRs on its own), it would be even easier. Just press the "Camera" button on the side and get the code in the viewfinder, then bam - done.
i was at the beach a couple weeks ago, and a couple of volunteers with an organization that test local beaches for water safety came by and told me about their iphone/android app. i mostly listened politely, ignoring everything they said because there was no way i was going to search the app store for their app and install it when they handed me a card with a QR code on it. scanning it installed their app on my phone. i don't know that it made my life better, but it certainly removed a lot of friction in getting me to install their app.
I've been experimenting with using QR codes just to copy/paste text and bookmarks between computers. It's something that sounds simple, but really there aren't any good ways to do that, especially not once you add mobile devices and computers other than your own.
Ever since I started seeing QR codes I, admittedly with a lack of interest anyway, just assumed that the iPhone/Android/Blackberry cameras all automatically detect the code and act on it in the built-in camera app, since it seemed like such a standard. It was disappointing to learn that wasn't really the case, and there's a bunch of competing third-party apps for doing it. It's amazing that it's gotten as far as it has without any large companies pushing it (that I'm aware of).
edit-
I should also add, I've never seen a person scanning one.
> It's amazing that it's gotten as far as it has without any large companies pushing it (that I'm aware of).
It's not being pushed much in the US. It's been created by a subsidiary of Toyota and is ubiquitous in Japan. It's also widely used in South Korea and (at the very least) Netherlands. I don't think there's any phone there which lacks native QRCode support in japan, and just about any poster has a QRCode on it linking to the relevant page.
No it isn't. It's widely pushed, for a value of "widely" that comes down to "you're likely to spot a few". Nobody actually uses them on the consumer end.
Disclaimer: I'm a guy who wrote a QR-URL-shortener during a sabbatical on a beach in mexico, it was awesome
i run the QR-URL-shortener http://miniqr.com/ (which we had way before goo.gl and bit.ly implemented this as a feature) - and also offer a webcam based QR code reader http://miniqr.com/reader.php - and after 2 years of watching the data and talking with QR code creators and users
- QR-codes fullfil a need of the publishers: making the conversions from print (magazines, poster, ...) campaigns trackable
- QR-codes in print do not fullfil a need of the user
- a kind of QR codes which get repeated onine views are links to the android app store and some v-cards (addresses + phone numbers)
so, desktop to mobile, yes kinda, print to mobile, i have my doubts.
so yeah, anyways: http://miniqr.com is for sale (and cheap) i will focus my energies elsewhere
Why QR codes shouldn't be trusted for anything but shipping labels:
-
Say you bank at BofA. On the door of the branch you go to is a sticker that says "Bank online, it's easier" and it has a QR code for you to conveniently scan to access their website. Now say someone came along and put a sticker, the exact size of the QR code, over the QR code of a QR code of a malicious url. Not only do you have no way of verifying the url, but it would even be hard for employees of the bank to notice the change.
You could print 1000 of these stickers and place them on bank doors and ATMs all throughout New York City and I bet you at least 10% would never get taken down.
The malicious url could then easily mimic real sign in screens to harvest credentials, and even have a seemingly legit url.
The problem with QR codes is you have to place almost all your trust in them as they're hard for anyone to verify. When shipping packages, who cares? Whose going to try to change a shipping label while in transit. But trusting your internet browsing to some garble of black squares seems like a huge security flaw.
Whose going to try to change a shipping label while in transit
Depends on the value of the goods, and how easy it is to get access to the labels before they are directed on. I don't think that scam is unrealistic at all.
It's essentially the same as trusting a link from a Wiki. Would I trust it to access my bank? No, of course not, I don't even trust Google for that. But banks are a very special case; most websites don't require nearly that trust.
Anyone can put a QR code sticker on anything that leads to anywhere. It's physical world linkjacking. As QR codes become more popular I wouldn't be surprised if the fake ones became overwhelming.
The advantage QR codes have over OCR for loading hyperlinks is that QR-codes are high-contrast, machine-readable, high-density, square (so they are guaranteed to fit in a viewfinder) and have error correction built in. OCR, on the other hand, requires that a (probably cheap) mobile phone camera be able to differentiate l from 1, O from 0, : from ;, and so on, no matter what font the designer chooses.
Requiring a "sane" font, size, color, and background color for OCR would not advance readability enough, and it would break the design even more than having a QR code. And even that won't solve the problems of squareness, byte density, and error correction. (Though the obvious solution is "type the URL in whatever font you want and put the QR code next to it.")
And a major advantage QR codes have over competitors in the field is that they are very recognizable, with the three position squares in the corners and the smaller alignment square in the opposite corner.
NFC fails on some advertising... advertising on a metro system? Your advert is likely to be the other side of some high voltage train tracks, no-one could scan the NFC, but people can still scan a QR code from that distance.
For transactions printed QR codes are a poor choice. A lot of the time transactions want to prove that you are there performing the transaction. As an example, think of payments and cardholder-not-present... the magnetic stripe and the chip on a debit card both hold more information (just a few extra bytes) than the 16-digit number printed on a card. It is possible to prove the debit card (and implicitly 'you') were there.
With QR codes someone is able to take a photo of a QR code and then scan it again else where. It's very hard to prove you were there for the sake of a transaction. Ignoring payments, think FourSquare check-ins that are tied to promotions where check-ins are done via QR scanning at a café, you're giving away a deal based on something you cannot prove and is open to fraud.
QR codes do help with transactions that don't require security, and with storing a fair amount of info in a dense area. Think vcards stored in a QR code on badges in a conference, or a bicycle with security QR stickers declaring ownership located in places where a bike mechanic would find them (under innertube on wheel rim, inside handlebars)... the ubiquity of QR readers (pretty much all smart phones) makes them ideal for communicating a small chunk of data to anyone and not requiring specialist equipment to read that data.
Where QR codes have weaknesses are related to storage of hidden data, and different values per instance of a code. Financial transactions depend on this to prove cardholder is present, and stock management depends on this to accurately count stock.
QR codes have their place (advertising, conference badges, tagging things, small chunks of dense data), and NFC has it's place (transactions, stock management). Sometimes these use cases overlap (conference badges) but mostly they do not.
QR codes also happen to be a fantastic way for devices to communicate when their primary peripherals happen to be cameras and screens. Both are now nearly ubiquitous on all phones and increasing in quality at a ridiculous rate.
I do not want to do a pairing dance to send you a link on my phone. Point a camera at a screen with a QR code, bam.
QR codes or something like them is a key step in augmented reality based on machine vision. May as well stick with what we've got(1). It seems to work.
(1) Unless its covered by a bunch of brain-dead "gif"-like patents in which case I suggest a grid of Pink Hearts, Yellow Moons, Orange Stars, Green Clovers, and Blue Diamonds. I've heard there's prior art for that scheme.
The real thing will be image scanning and nothing else. I'll post a video soon here on HN to prove that images are way better "barcodes" than both 1D and 2D/QR barcodes.
What I can say now is:
1. QR codes don't work on distances - state of the art image algoritms do.
2. QR codes mess with the brand appearance - basically H&M don't want a QR code all over an ad.
3. QR codes fail when there's reflection, dark dirt, and very skewed camera - state of the art image algoritms don't.
...
I wish I could post our video today to prove how much more convenient image scanning is - and what we use it for - for non-believers, but I have to wait a few weeks. Until then check YouTube.
They've been doing the image scanning thing a bit in Sweden, where you can take pictures of bus stop ads and be taken to a site. The problem as I see it is that it needs a database connection, which means
* You need a network connection for it to work, so it won't work everywhere (subway ads)
* Since there's a network service involved, it can't be an open standard, and users will need 20 different apps installed for all the different service providers, and figure out just what app to use for this damn ad.
* Due to the network roundtrip, you don't have instant feedback that the scan worked, which is a problem since
* Performance is poor in the dark.
QR codes also solve the problem of telling people that there's something actually there to scan.
1) Network works well in metro for me mostly, though it's a valid point that it might suffer here and there. But metros is just a smal fraction of the possabiities we - and retailers we talked with - see.
2) It won't be 20 apps, becuase there are only a few companies in the world that has sophisticated algorithms enough - many algorithms you can read about on the web are not realiable enough. So far no one has done a consumer product but hundreds of QR-based apps, I would say that this say a bit how hard it is. Anyone can craete a QR app based on some open-source libs.
3) Well, our demos show something else - ~1-2 seconds.
4) Flash. And scenario for scanning stuff in night dark is...not really a descent secenario anyway if it's that dark people have hard to see.
5) That's an assumption based on today's reality, because no viable succeedors are available yet that do more valuable things. Yet I haven't heard of anyone using QR codes more than once or twice for fun even though it been "hot" since for half a decade or more.
These algoritms can look for features in the image in a matter of milliseconds and match those against known ones (which is not a problem, the set can be huge withour performance impact if handle correctly). If you want to detect QR codes that works per definition of image detection, but you are not bound to such - a red shirt with a tiny tiny logotype is good enough characteristic.
Not sure if I answered your question though. Did I? :)
Well, in our case we have the long-term vision of being the first choice for bying products via image feature detection. We believe that people in the future will expect anything to be scannable, in same way anything is searchable. In both cases you might get false positives with a rating how good match it was. Though, our view is that most people haven't seen the state of the art solutions in use for consumer products. We want to change that, very soon.
Well, if majority of retailers want this - then expect them to make customers use it asap. You got right to be pessimistic about our vision, time will tell if you are right. One thing that I'm sure of though; QR codes will not survive for long.
I think one of the factors working against the QR code is it does not have a recognizable uniform function. The code can contain an text or data in any number of formats which isn't apparent to the naked eye. The text might be a URL, or it might be a poem, or it could be a vCard.
This causes consumer confusion. It's almost like we need standard contextual decorations around the QR codes to hint at the contents. Like how http, www, and underlining tell people a string of text is a web URL.
Or maybe just new, incompatible subsets of QR codes that have an unmistakable appearance and purpose. Sometimes connectors both physical and virtual are designed on purpose to be incompatible even though technically it's all just hollow tubes or copper wires.
I would maybe liken QR codes to SGML. We need something more like HTML. Limited but with a standard interpretation that everyone can understand.
Assuming you could design icons that appear mostly black to the reader, you could replace the four black pixels in one of the position patterns with an icon (globe for hyperlink, business card for contact info...)
I actually found a fun and sensible use of QR codes last month. I was at City Museum [1], which is sort of like a giant not-very-safe jungle gym for adults, and I noticed that they had some QR codes laminated and stuck in hard-to-find places. I scanned one, and it gave me some bonus information about the area I'd found it in (photos of them lifting the world's largest pencil into the building, I think).
That's actually helpful. Navigating to a sub-page on their website directly, relevant to the physical space I found the code in.
By contrast, the average use of QR codes in print appears to be to make me not have to remember a short top-level URL like "nytimes.com" which I could have typed in easily anyway.
Here's what I don't get about QR codes: why not just use URLs and OCR them? OCR seems to be pretty good these days, and you could always print the URL with a font of your choice (e.g. pick something easy to OCR).
And you get this cool feature ... humans can read them, too.
QR codes are apart of our strategy at Infostripe. For free (in beta) you get a web app designed to connect everything about your presence online, a virtual business card. Put the generated QR code on your business card, badge or home screen and bring it all together. It's worth a look. http://infostripe.com
We really like QR codes and hope for a day when smartphone software gets built in scanning and seeking.
Another issue is the presence of competing technologies: I hadn't heard of Microsoft Tag before (the invisible elephant in the room?), but the presence of rival technologies might slow down adoption. Soon packaging is going to be covered with tags, bar codes, QR codes, etc.
Please, can someone give a good reason why the bundled camera apps are not supporting QR codes? For an average user, it would be the easiest option to just use the camera on the phone. Less friction and so on.
The main problem I have with QR codes is that humans can't read them. Therefore, they will be relegated forever to the sphere of computerish heiroglyphics that normal people will always ignore, because they have no obvious real world relevance. By way of contrast, most of the old EAN barcodes have the number printed under them, so a human can see what they encode when the barcode scanner breaks. QR codes, not so easy.
As suggested by another commenter, decide on some way of making the URL easy to OCR, perhaps by surrounding it with targeting sentinels and using a standard font. I mean, if Google Goggles can OCR text on a menu or poster in real time... a QR code is just making things complicated.
Also, let me tell you this really great joke: CueCat.