While all the symbols seemed to be highly readable, that was in a "pristine" state, before some level of damaged that would likely be experienced in a field application. The ANSI grades for the symbols even in this state ranged from mostly Cs and Bs to one A grade.

Moore further noted that "None of the tested online symbol generators allowed selectable error correction (EC) levels so the default value was applied. Allowable EC levels are L (low), M (medium), Q (quality) and H (highest).

"Symbol size selection for three of the encoders was limited to "small", "medium" and "large". One encoder, however, allowed the number of x and y pixels to be selected independently. The option to select independent x and y values is particularly worrisome since the symbology specification calls for the nominal x and y values to be the same. As a test, a 100x400pixel symbol was created. As was expected, the symbol was not recognized by a reader as a QR Code symbol."

Moore adds that "For some applications, such as social networking, free online encoders are fine since the worst that will happen is that symbols will sometimes be unreadable. But for professional and commercial applications where an investment is being made in the use of QR Code symbols, commercial encoders or commercially-produced symbols will offer higher quality and greater reliability."

We agree that Moore is on the right track, but would not dismiss the impact of poor symbols even for social media/marketing applications, in which unreadable symbols could obviously lead to consumer frustration.

Moore is also critical of the trend for marketers to change the color of some of the dots in the QR symbol to make the logo of the company visible.

Moore says that "This is deliberately damaging the symbol for the sake of the embedded logo. If only a few modules in the QR code symbol are altered in this manner, the symbology's error correction capabilities can still render the symbol readable."

He adds that marketers may "test" the symbol for readability by using a few cell phones in the office before sending the symbol image on to others for reproduction in store or elsewhere. Readability may not prove so easy in the real world applications.

"The erroneous belief is that if the designer can read the symbol, everyone will be able to read the symbol. This is scarily reminiscent of the so-called (and misnamed) "readability verification" for linear bar codes in the mid-to-late-1980s," Moore says.

The SCDigest Bottom Line: IT or auto ID professionals in companies should provide badly needed expertise and process discipline to marketing personnel rapidly expanding the use of QR symbols in various media, including promotion of the use of more commercial (not free) but flexible and robust encoders. At the same time, supply chain organizations should take a look at how QR symbols tied to information on web page might enhance certain processes on the factory or DC floor.

Do marketers need to get a bit more discipline when producing QR codes? Can you see opportunities to link to web pages using a QR symbol in supply chain applications? Let us know your thoughts at the Feedback button below,