#barcodeverification

To ensure the quality of barcodes we require barcode verification. There are offline barcode verification and inline barcode verification. This blog differentiates between the two and also tells you why Inline Barcode Verification is better than Offline verification.

By John Nachtrieb 11/08/2017

We hear on a nearly daily basis how imperiled we are, hastening into extinction. Digital imaging scanners are capable of reading severely damaged or poorly printed barcodes; some symbologies have significant error correction capabilities; barcode design software eliminates the possibility of non-compliant data entry; and advancements in digital printing technology has removed many of the variables associated with platemaking, impression and dot gain.

So-called invisible “barcodes” have made inroads into traditional barcode space, promising to speed up point-of-sale checkout. Other forms of marking that use random patterns instead of parallel lines and spaces or a grid of dots, have emerged; some of them are imaged at very small geometries, nearly invisible. Because of this they are claimed to be very secure.

We are Toast

At a recent AIDC industry trade group meeting, we heard about recent growth in adoption of RFID, which has long been predicted to replace—or at least reduce—the use of barcodes. Printable chipless tags are driving down costs, making RFID more competitive with barcodes.

There is no question that these technologies have their place but they are not without tradeoffs, and they are not without quality and performance concerns comparable to barcodes. Rather than obsolete the barcode, it is more likely that barcodes will continue to do what they best, and be replaced by technologies that do some things better in certain applications. Right now, none of the newer technologies are less expensive or more secure than printed barcodes.

Frequently the claim that barcodes are becoming obsolete is in conjunction with the belief that technology is—or has already—made barcode verification unnecessary. This extrapolation is a vast stretch. At GS1 Connect last month, we learned that poor data quality has a significant financial impact on supply chains, brick-and-mortal operations and sales, and e-commerce. If technology has eliminated print quality as a barcode performance issue, it has only provided a partial solution. As we have seen with some ink jet systems, the promise of high quality barcodes is sometimes overstated.

Barcode Verification Is Not Obsolete Yet

Change is most certainly in the air, when isn’t it? Maybe barcode verification will be rendered obsolete by some advancement at some point in the future, but not today. While it is true that we encounter fewer bad barcodes in the checkout line, they do still happen. And they are very disruptive, not just to the shopping experience, but to the inventory system, the supply chain and the trading partner relationship.

“But verifiers are so expensive…” we often hear. Admittedly it is a hard sale when barcodes themselves are so cheap and reliable. But what is the real cost of a bad barcode compared to a “very expensive” verifier, amortized over a very conservative 5 year service life? It is not unusual to find 10 and 15 year old verifiers that still calibrate and perform to spec.

Barcode verification may become obsolete in the future, but in the present it makes business sense. The FDA’s UDI rule, for example, states that barcode quality must be verified, and references the ISO/IEC standards to define print quality.

Paul Bergé, President of Axicon Auto ID, told of a recent reseller experience in a presentation to GS1 Connect:

By John Nachtrieb 30/03/2016

We’ve written a lot about barcode quality, finding the right barcode verifier, interpreting the verification report and how to verify a barcode. But what is the single most important barcode verification tool? Hint: it is not the verifier.

One of the problems with technology is the implicit promise it seems to make. For reasons too complicated to go into here, technology seems to promise us that by using it, all our questions will be answered and we will have a clear understanding of (fill in the blank)…in this case, barcode quality. Even a high quality barcode verifier may to some users seem to fall short on this promise. The Average Grade is an F and the cause is a failing grade for Modulation or Decodability. Great—but what does this mean? What do I do to correct this problem?

The problem is, you aren’t using the single most important barcode verification tool: your eyes.

Here is a recent example that came through our barcode test lab. This symbol showed up as an email attachment and the client was complaining that their verifier wasn’t reading it at all. Was the problem print quality or data structure? With no verifier decode there was no verification report and therefore no ISO parameter grades.  Take a closer look and voila!

The rotogravure “waffle” pattern makes the barcode looks like a cacophony of random light and dark spots to a verifier–and a scanner.

In this example the verifier is reporting poor scores for Modulation. But what is that and how to correct it? The left, center and right guard bars in a UPC should all be the same width, as should the space between them. The problem is obvious with a quick visual examination.

This same symbol also failed the ISO parameter Decodability. What’s that? It could be a variety of things, but a visual inspection shows at least one possible cause. Again, the UPC guard bars should all be equal in width. Look how the barcode is more heavily gained on the right side than the left side.

This QR Code looks OK from a distance, but the verifier doesn’t like it at all. Taking a second look, one can readily see that there is virtually no quiet zone on two sides—and yes, QR Code is supposed to have a quiet zone.

Finally, these Data Matrix codes recently came through the lab. Like my car, they look better from a distance than close up—and they look really terrible close up! The verifier could not decode them and therefore could not provide any quality report. A quick look with a low power magnifier tells the take—is there any wonder they wouldn’t scan?