3 ms·
I've used scores of different hardware readers (zebra, motorola, star, el-cheapo, etc). All of them read 2d faster than they read 1d. And we get a higher first-
by edoceo 6y ago
I've used scores of different hardware readers (zebra, motorola, star, el-cheapo, etc). All of them read 2d faster than they read 1d. And we get a higher first-try success on 2d. IIRC 1d was like 80% and 2d was over 95%
- mark-r 6y agoThere are many 1d standards. How many did you try?
- edoceo 6y agoC128(ABC) and 39 got the most testing (other players in my space like C128). I'd also like to add that the fail rate on C128 increased as the encoded values got complex. That is to say 15 numeric chars was "very reliable" but 17 alpha-numeric+1 symbol had was "very unreliable" And if you're in the <12 digits only space C128 is still a safe choice
- mark-r 6y agoThat's an interesting observation. I'd expect C128 to be good because the checksum character should reject most bad scans.
- edoceo 6y agoYessir, that's my (perhaps unclear) point. Give it the trigger on the "complex" C128 and we get a read fail. But scan success on attempt 3 or 4. QR scans with high success on first bread.
- mark-r 6y agoDoes QR include some kind of error correction code? That would be far more sophisticated than a checksum, and lead to more salvageable results from bad scans.