Usual apologetic comment about lack of posting much of any sense: I had a busy week last
week and this week is unlikely to get any better. More on that anon.
But my grumble today is on QR codes. You know, the black-and-white squares which are proliferating like teenage sexual diseases. Everyone who wants to seem 'on trend' is plastering them wherever they can. I had a wedding invitation with one on. Yes.
And what are they, essentially? A web shortcut. The are essentially just a visually cyphered html link. Which is odd because I have seen them on websites to direct you to another page or site.
QR stands for 'quick response'. The codes are supposed to be quick, convenient, secure and funky.
But, in fact, they fail on each of those.
They aren't actually that quick. By the time you have gotten the camera or barcode scanner working on your phone and it has properly identified the web url you could easily have tapped in a website address into your browser.
And they aren't that convenient either. You have to have a copy of the leaflet or magazine with the code on, and your cameraphone. Not great if you are in a mobile 'not-spot': you can't get it. You can't get it on your laptop when you get home or get to work. You end up cluttering up the pavement and looking like a pillock taking a photo of a phonebox when in reality you are trying to scan the code on the advertising wrap which has been half peeled by a cheeky scamp or enthusiastic phone-box-cleaner or has simply gotten dirty or some unwanted chewinggum attached to it.
And that makes them insecure too. If you have the chewinggum problem with a web address you can normally guess what it is covering, fill in the blanks. With a QR code if there is something missing, you have no idea what it could be. You don't even know that it is the correct code directing you to the correct site: there are already reports of people 'slamming' codes, either physically replacing one on the promotional material, or technologically redirecting. Yes, web URLs are not infallable, and many misspellings have resulting frustrating, embarrassing and plain offensive stumblings. And the lack of spaces has led to some sites having unintentional consequences. Just ask the owners of whorepresents.com which should be telling you who represents someone but in fact looks like the presentations of a whore.
And let's be fair: they aren't funky any more. A few years ago they might have been, but with their ubiquitous occurance leads to a lack of novelty. They are now perfectly normal. Nothing to see here.
Are they going to die off? Probably not. Rather than replacing web addresses, they will offer an alternative route, supporting rather than supplanting; adding to, rather than replacing cluttering rather than cutting down information. And in these days when there is so much information around, we need to be selective about what information we take on.
week and this week is unlikely to get any better. More on that anon.
But my grumble today is on QR codes. You know, the black-and-white squares which are proliferating like teenage sexual diseases. Everyone who wants to seem 'on trend' is plastering them wherever they can. I had a wedding invitation with one on. Yes.
And what are they, essentially? A web shortcut. The are essentially just a visually cyphered html link. Which is odd because I have seen them on websites to direct you to another page or site.
QR stands for 'quick response'. The codes are supposed to be quick, convenient, secure and funky.
But, in fact, they fail on each of those.
They aren't actually that quick. By the time you have gotten the camera or barcode scanner working on your phone and it has properly identified the web url you could easily have tapped in a website address into your browser.
And they aren't that convenient either. You have to have a copy of the leaflet or magazine with the code on, and your cameraphone. Not great if you are in a mobile 'not-spot': you can't get it. You can't get it on your laptop when you get home or get to work. You end up cluttering up the pavement and looking like a pillock taking a photo of a phonebox when in reality you are trying to scan the code on the advertising wrap which has been half peeled by a cheeky scamp or enthusiastic phone-box-cleaner or has simply gotten dirty or some unwanted chewinggum attached to it.
And that makes them insecure too. If you have the chewinggum problem with a web address you can normally guess what it is covering, fill in the blanks. With a QR code if there is something missing, you have no idea what it could be. You don't even know that it is the correct code directing you to the correct site: there are already reports of people 'slamming' codes, either physically replacing one on the promotional material, or technologically redirecting. Yes, web URLs are not infallable, and many misspellings have resulting frustrating, embarrassing and plain offensive stumblings. And the lack of spaces has led to some sites having unintentional consequences. Just ask the owners of whorepresents.com which should be telling you who represents someone but in fact looks like the presentations of a whore.
And let's be fair: they aren't funky any more. A few years ago they might have been, but with their ubiquitous occurance leads to a lack of novelty. They are now perfectly normal. Nothing to see here.
Are they going to die off? Probably not. Rather than replacing web addresses, they will offer an alternative route, supporting rather than supplanting; adding to, rather than replacing cluttering rather than cutting down information. And in these days when there is so much information around, we need to be selective about what information we take on.
No comments:
Post a Comment