Isn't it the other way around? QR codes have built-in error correction whereas barcodes typically don't (beyond a single check-digit, which is more error detection rather than correction, and even that depends on the information being encoded) so can sustain a surprisingly large amount of damage and still be readable.
Indeed, I often see QR codes which have been deliberately damaged for the visual impact (e.g. chunks missing to make a pleasing shape, or place an arbitrary logo in the centre). They still work due to the error correction but now there's no redundancy left and one additional piece of damage might literally make it unreadable.
Not at all. I worked apart time job delivering parcels that were scanned with a specialized bar code scanner. Most of the parcels had dual barcode/QR codes for the tracking number. You would be surprised how much damage could be done to the QR codes before they were unreadable. Even if the QR code had small folds over itself the codes would still read. The barcodes were unreadable with the slightest amount of damage or ink bleed.
Good to know. I must have been misled back in lockdown days when some people sabotaged QR codes on purpose by adding a few dots with permanent markers.
When you generate a QR code you can choose the level of redundancy. So a code can be generated that is super picky and needs to be perfect to scan, or one can be generated that can be read even when badly damaged.
mariuolo · · focus · HN ↗
Are there studies on how that might affect logistics?
benashford · · focus · HN ↗
Indeed, I often see QR codes which have been deliberately damaged for the visual impact (e.g. chunks missing to make a pleasing shape, or place an arbitrary logo in the centre). They still work due to the error correction but now there's no redundancy left and one additional piece of damage might literally make it unreadable.
CTDOCodebases · · focus · HN ↗
mariuolo · · focus · HN ↗
BenjiWiebe · · focus · HN ↗