http://www.fotel.com/blog/ Barcode Label Blog en info@fotel.com Copyright 2010 2010-01-06T19:22:00-06:00 http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/iso-iec-15416-barcode-quality-specification/ http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/iso-iec-15416-barcode-quality-specification/#When:19:22:00Z ISO/IEC 15416 Barcode Quality Specification: Hype, Reality and Good FaithThe ISO spec for quality of linear barcodes is one of the most often quoted, misquoted and misunderstood documents. Reminds me of the Bible: quoted, misquoted and misunderstood and probably for the same reason: most people don’t really read it. That’s a blog for another venue and day.  For example, two so-called bedrock parameters for ISO 15416 are the ten-scan average and the 660nm wavelength requirement for light source. Neither of them is hard-wired into the ISO/IEC 15416 specification.The main text of the ANSI/CEN/ISO specification does indeed state that the Overall Symbol Grade is based on a ten scan average, but the appended language states that when there is low possibility of defects in the barcode the number of scans per symbol can be reduced to as few as 2. Refer to Annex G and J for the exact language.  Then there’s the requirement that verification be done in 660nm red light. Actually the ISO specification does not require any particular wavelength of light for verification. What it says is that verification should be performed in the same wavelength as the scanner that will ultimately decode the symbol. Certainly most of the scanners out there are built with 660nm + 10nm but not all of them are. The wavelength is specified in the industry application specification—not in the ISO/IEC 15416 specification. Thus it is not always wrong to verify in some other wavelength, such as white light.These apparent discrepancies do not discredit ISO/IEC 15416. The specification knowingly attempts to do the impossible: to nail down variables in a rubber world. Some of these variables just won’t be nailed down—and in addition to that, scanning technology is evolving and improving. The specification is meant to give shape and direction to barcode quality and to make barcode symbol performance predictable and repeatable.  Here’s one example of a verification system that deviates from ISO/IEC 15416, the rationale for doing so, and how to control it. We have installed automated, unattended verification on high speed variable printing systems. By “variable” I mean sequenced barcodes, not repetitions of the same encoded data. Lighting was a major concern for two primary reasons:1. Ambient light was intense and variable, and not optional. The work area had to be well illuminated. In the work area of one production floor the overhead lighting was high-intensity sodium; in another it was mercury vapor. Both lighting systems produce a lot of red spectrum. Verification lighting needed to overcome that. In a third situation, the shop floor was bathed in fluorescent light. This in combination with the high speed produced false light and dark readings because of the pulsing of the fluorescent lights. Again, verifier lighting had to overcome this. White light was the best available technology.2. The high speed nature of the situation also required very intense light.  A third factor helped mitigate the decision to use white light: the barcodes were always black on white, so color contrast was never going to be an issue. Nevertheless we felt it was important to correlate the reflectance values and contrast grades achieved by our white light system to a calibrated and ISO conforming 660nm verifier. In all cases the customer’s test station verifier was used as the reference standard. First we re-calibrated using a Certified Conformance Standard Test Card to make sure their verifier was in specification to ISO/IEC 15416, and then we made our high speed automated system match it as closely as possible. In all cases we got well within the tolerance for conformance of their lab verifier.This is not bending the rules—this is making use of flexibility built into the rules—even ones that are considered “bedrock”. It is not always possible to follow ISO/IEC 15416 (or ISO/IEC 15415 for verification of 2D symbols), whether for technical or economic reasons. Good faith must always be the cornerstone. The ultimate goal is to produce high quality, high performing barcodes that meet the requirements of the customer and the marketplace.  In some applications and industries the requirements and methodology are well thought through, clearly spelled out and usually achievable. But sometimes even such clearly defined requirements are poorly thought out and unrealistic. And at other times the verification requirements are ambiguous or even nonexistent. Again, the goal is to meet the needs of the customer and the market. If one is honest about the methodology, the symbols meet the expected quality level and the customer is served. Then and only then can the verification process be considered appropriate and successful. Verification 2010-01-06T19:22:00-06:00 http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/gs1-data-matrix-test-cards/ http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/gs1-data-matrix-test-cards/#When:21:49:00Z  Verifier calibration test cards, for both linear and 2D symbols, can be ordered on the GS1 US website. 2D Barcodes Come of Age: A Glimpse Behind the Scenes Those of us old enough to remember—and were tuned into what was happening—remember the difficult birthing process of the 1D or linear barcode. This was back in the late 70’s and throughout the 80’s and into the early 90’s.We had the technology to encode information in a machine readable way but because there was no industry-established way of defining, let alone testing quality, barcode scanning was a hit-or-miss proposition. By the mid 80’s there existed a class of instruments to test barcode quality but no one was really sure what “quality” meant. Early verifiers used light and timing to take relative bar and space width and reflectivity “measurements” but even with passing grades, the barcodes sometimes still wouldn’t scan properly.The lack of correlation between verifier results and scanner performance led an industry group to push to develop what was basically a verifier for the verifiers, aptly called “The Judge”.  It took the finest minds in the industry 10 years to complete this important task.Thankfully many of those fine minds are still active and productive, and remember well the lessons learned on linear symbols. And they well recognized the likelihood of repeating the false starts and painful gestation that would likely repeat in birthing a widely acceptable, high performing and reliable 2D symbology.They set to work on a 2D Judge which was quietly and momentously born in Ohio earlier this year. The license to operate it was well earned and won by Product Identification and Processing Systems (PIPS) of New York City who will operate the 2D Judge under contract with GS1 US.Congratulations to PIPS and colleagues. Read more about The 2D Judge & Data Matrix conformance test cards on free sample article from SCAN: The Datacapture Report. Of course, if you don’t subscribe to SCAN: The DATA CAPTURE Report, then you’re missing the other articles in this issue and the excellent and insightful AIDC industry reporting that Rick provides twice a month year in and year out.Verifier calibration test cards, for both linear and 2D symbols, can be ordered on the GS1 US website. Verification 2009-11-30T21:49:00-06:00 http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/diy-barcode-labels/ http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/diy-barcode-labels/#When:19:07:00Z DIY Barcode Labels or Barcode Software—the Whole PackageYou’ve been buying barcode files or barcode labels from some outsourceThey’ve been a good vendor but…it’s an itemized cost that you can see month after month and it bugs you You, because you could, (so says the software vendor) decide it would be cheaper to do it yourselfDid I get the conversation in your head about right?   Well, it’s more than mostly true—it is all true. But it is not the whole truth.What you don’t tell yourself—because it doesn’t occur to you—and what the software vendors don’t tell you—because they don’t want you to think about it—is that when you acquire barcode software or when you do your own barcoce labels, you also acquire all the liability.  It’s also true that not all barcode file providers and barcode label printers take responsibility for the quality of their barcoding products, but the really reputable ones do and say so, in terms such as “Guaranteed Quality”.  Furthermore you can gauge the integrity of a barcode file or barcode label vendor who, after receiving your data, calls you and asks questions or points out potential problems with your barcode data.  We’ve done that any number of times—especially with coupon codes where we’re not sure the customer intended to make as generous an offer as their data would indicate.We’ve also called customers who have inadvertently reissued a barcode number for a different product, which our database caught.  There are myriad other scenarios of averted disasters proving Murphy’s Law over and over. But the point is, the cost of the barcode software is not the whole expense and the savings could be erased with one liability-triggering event.Software is a license to drive. But you also need to know what you’re doing and insurance to protect you from the unavoidable.Knowing what you’re doing is the result of ongoing education. There are a few good barcode seminars available to help you establish a baseline of knowledge. From there your challenge is to stay up to date because barcode creation and compliance labeling are dynamic technologies, especially in the retail channel.   As for insurance, this takes the form of a barcode verifier which tests and grades the quality and performance of a barcode printed image. DIY barcode files or barcode labels, can you do it yourself? You can, but are you up to the challenge?  Applications 2009-10-30T19:07:00-06:00 http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/ansi-barcode-verification/ http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/ansi-barcode-verification/#When:16:50:00Z Does a passing ANSI grade “guarantee” that the barcode is good?I presented a workshop on barcode quality at a trade gathering last week. During the Q&A after my talk an attendee asked if a passing ANSI grade “guaranteed” that the barcode was good. The question really gave me pause. The word (and concept) of “guarantee” is one of those hyperbolic words that should give us all pause. I answered that even an ANSI grade of “A” on a barcode did not “guarantee” that all barcode liability was removed—and time prohibited me from further explaining it (thank heaven). But the question has continued to challenge me. So here are the beginnings of a more comprehensive answer.The ANSI system is the successor to the Traditional test parameters for barcode quality. Traditional tests were based on linear measurement of bars and spaces and while there are specifications and tolerances on them, barcodes were passing traditional tests and still failing to decode. Enter the ANSI system that evaluates barcodes on reflective attributes—the same way scanners work and a much better basis for evaluation. But not perfect.  There are other attributes such as symbol location that could cause a retailer to write-up a supplier, effectively reporting a failure and supporting a non-compliance fine. This is not what I’m talking about here. Neither am I talking about validation errors—I discussed that in an earlier post. This is where the barcode scans perfectly and achieves (let’s say) an ANSI “A grade—but it’s the wrong barcode for the product.There are other circumstances in which a barcode could earn a great ANSI grade and still fail. Specifically, it could fail an industry application standard, the most ubiquitous of these being the GS1 application standard. Probably the most violated GS1 standard is the one for couponing, but there are others. The barcode is a perfectly valid symbol but the AI is in the wrong place (or missing), the Family Code is either the wrong code, or it’s an invalid code, etc. This is what I’m talking about—and it happens all the time.  Such errors are not covered by the ANSI spec so an ANSI-compliant verifier doesn’t have to check for them—and most of them don’t. But—and here’s the critical point—some of them do! Industry Applications are special and specific variants of a particular symbology. Many symbologies have them. The UPC system is probably the most prevalent. There are variants for the book publishing industry, variants for the music publishers, variants for couponing and over-the-counter drug products, etc. The generic UPC may pass all 9 ANSI parameters but fail an industry-specific attribute. If your verifier doesn’t check industry applications, you will be blind to this—and liable for it.  This is what I would have said to the questioner at last week’s workshop, if I’d been smarter and quicker on my feet. Where do you look for meaningful help, for confidence, for assurance? That’s why God made reputable resellers. Verification 2009-09-24T16:50:00-06:00 http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/barcode-test/ http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/barcode-test/#When:16:06:00Z How well do you know barcodes?  RFID Digest is running an interesting quiz- How Well do you Know Barcodes? But the part I like the best is the opening sentence. It expresses a truth that is rare and refreshing. We do indeed hear a lot of hype and (mostly) opinion about barcode technology versus RFID technology. Most recently an article was circulating about how barcodes aren’t really as cheap as people say they are, making RFID even more cost effective than people think it is, blah blah blah.  Well, bicycles are much less expensive than cars and do certain very significant things much better than cars do; there are myriad other comparisons like this that are, well, ridiculous.   Barcodes and RFID both have a place in the world right now. That will change over time, perhaps quickly. Why do folks have this need to reduce everything to “…what is better and what is worse…”? How about studying and understanding and making optimum use of  “…what is..”?  Whether or not you do well on the barcode quiz, what other questions about barcodes can you come up with?  And more to the point about studying, understanding and making optimum use of what is, what are the pro’s and con’s of barcode technology and of RFID technology without digressing into which is best and which is worst? Just a plain, point-blank list of features and capabilities. No opinions, nobody trying to look smart.  Wouldn’t that be interesting!Take the RFID Digest- How well do you Know Barcodes quiz here: http://www.scdigest.com/assets/On_Target/09-07-15-4.php  Barcodes 2009-07-17T16:06:00-06:00 http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/barcode-verification-technology/ http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/barcode-verification-technology/#When:15:49:00Z Here’s a newsflash for you: we live in an age where technology is considered the solution to all problems. Yes, I said all problems, from the cost of the U.S. health care system right down to (could you see this coming) barcode quality. This is not just my opinion: a direct competitor’s website says “The Verifier should be the barcode expert in your organization, …(here’s the part I like best)…removing the burden of knowledge from your staff.”  Knowledge is such a burden. We must be rid of it. As soon as possible. Balderdash.  It would make my life, as a barcode expert, so much easier if it worked like that—but in 36 years in the barcode industry, it has never worked that way. Never.Opinions are a burden. Knowledge is not a burden. Wrong opinions are the most burdensome of burdens. Knowledge is the path out of burden.  A barcode verifier is like a microscope, or a ruler. It is a tool. It gives the user new and better eyeballs with which to see what’s going on. Better eyeballs give the brain more and better information; a more informed brain makes better decision. A verifier does not—indeed, cannot—interpret what is going on or tell the user why. A brain does that.And speaking of eyeballs—those are the best tool in the barcode quality toolbox. I’ve said it before, and I’ll probably never be finished saying it. And yet, only a few of the places I visit even have a magnifier on site. And those who do are often somewhat embarrassed about it. It’s so, oh I don’t know, 20th Century.  Well, barcode-related liability is still liability. And high quality barcodes are still a strategic advantage to vendors who provide them, prove that they do, and use it as a marketing tool. And why shouldn’t they? A high quality, ISO-certified barcode verifier is a very important part of the overall program, and it’s important to get the right one for your specific situation. But knowledge is just as important---contrary to what others may perpetrate, the verifier never replaces knowledge. Never.  And an essential component of knowledge is the ability to see what the verifier sees.The verifier and the magnifier, a nice low power 8X or 10X magnifier, are all anybody ever needs to scrutinize a barcode and tell what’s going on. That and a little knowledge. Verification 2009-07-17T15:49:00-06:00 http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/printed-barcode-verificiation/ http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/printed-barcode-verificiation/#When:22:01:00Z When I was a kid my Dad had his car serviced at a local garage where the proprietor had a sense of humor. Customers would pull up to the garage entrance where a sign instructed you to “Beep 2 ½ times”. My brother and I thought that was hilarious. We were easily entertained—but the logic has stuck with me, and applies to the challenge of matching barcode design software to the output device (printer) resolution.  Unless the printer is analog, the file and the printer must be optimized to each other. Like a horn beep or a hole in the ground, there ain’t no such thing as half a pixel. If the file and  printer resolutions aren’t matched, the printer goes through all sorts of gyrations trying to resolve the conflict. But the ultimate outcome is that lines are moved to new locations, not the ones that reside in the barcode specification, and this causes all sorts of mayhem in scanning and decoding. In verification it shows up in the ANSI parameter “decodability”.For illustration purposes we’re going to tell you how to optimize a Subset C Code 128 barcode containing 30 digits.   But first, let’s standardize the nomenclature.  “Pixel” means the smallest dot a printer can produce.“Element” means a bar or space in a barcode, regardless of width. A Subset C Code 128 has three possible bar or space widths.“Module” means the X dimension which is the basic building block of a bar code. A Subset C Code 128 encodes pairs of characters, not individual characters, using 11 modules. The only exception to this rule is the stop code, which is 13 modules wide—the start code is 11 modules wide.By “optimizing” I mean matching the design file (software) resolution to the printer or output device resolution. Barcode bars (elements) are usually printed in multiple pixel widths. “Optimizing” is defined as making sure elements (bars and spaces) are produced by whole pixels, not fractional pixels (which is impossible).Here’s how it’s done:  Calculate the printer resolution to determine pixel width. For example  300 DPI means that in one linear inch there are 300 possible pixels, so each pixel must be 1/300th of an inch or .00333 (three and one-third thousandths) of an inch wide.At 240 DPI, pixels are .00417” wide, etc. A 30-digit Code 128 (Subset C) contains 15 pairs of encoded characters, each comprised of 11 modules, or 165 modules. The start character adds another 11 modules and the stop character adds 13, so the total is 189 modules.At 300 DPI, if each module is two pixels wide the symbol would be 1.25874 wide, not including quiet zones.At 240 DPI, if each module is two pixels wide the symbol would be 1.57626” wide, not including quiet zones.As you can see, you cannot simply define a symbol width and expect the printer to provide it. You must compromise to the nearest acceptable width because pixel width drives the outcome, and there are no fractional pixels.  Here’s what it looks like when you don’t optimize: The “mayhem” is obvious. Bars are moved on their centers to new locations. If it is moved to the left, it steals real estate from the left space; if it is moved to the right, it steals it from the right space. If the bar width isn’t an even number of pixels, it is interpolated into some strange, new width which could be wider or narrower than specified. If it is wider, it steals the extra width from the flanking spaces. Yes, this is truly mayhem.Anybody out there still think they don’t need to verify barcodes?   Verification 2009-06-25T22:01:00-06:00 http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/barcode-quality-barcode-verification/ http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/barcode-quality-barcode-verification/#When:14:07:00Z An Ounce of Prevention- or Remediation-I just finished presenting another Barcode 101 Seminar. This is one of my favorite things. There is so much about it that is- just wonderful. You get to meet people on their terms, and on their turf. Usually there is a group, sometimes a fairly large group. People are where they are comfortable and often they open up. They talk about their barcode problems and we get to help them. What could be better than that?  That old adage about “…an ounce of prevention…” really exposes its limitations in these situations. Sure it’s better to prevent problems. Nobody would doubt that. But few people have the foresight, or the time, or the budget to prevent problems these days. We can waste a lot of time and bandwidth kvetching about that, but at the end of the day, that’s just how it is. It’s one of the several frustrations people of good conscience, doing the best they can, often in big companies, must suffer. It’s always a privilege to deal with people of good conscience- whatever the circumstance.The problem with the adage is that it describes a finite world. We live in a linear world. We can almost never prevent the first problem. But think of all of the “next problems” we can prevent if we learn from that first one.  This is especially evident in “channel” systems, like the retail channel, or trace and track, and manufacturing lines. Wherever there is a stream, especially a “downstream” there will be future opportunities for an ounce of prevention. Where the barcode is a tool in that system, our barcode quality seminar can make a big difference.We’ve probably presented the barcode seminar to several tens of thousands of people in more conference rooms and companies than I can remember or about 20 years. We always do a follow-up with the client and we always do out own post-mortem back home so we can hold ourselves accountable to the continuous improvement discipline. For some reason, this time it came down to trying to identify the single most important thing that almost everybody overlooks in their barcode quality program. - Was it lack of knowledge of the ISO specifications for barcode quality? - Was it lack of knowledge about a specific symbology?- Was it lack of verification equipment?  The salesperson in me strained to say it was something I could sell, but the truth is, the single most important thing that almost everybody overlooks in their barcode quality program is looking at their barcodes carefully.Don’t buy a microscope. The best tool is a cheap, plastic 8X magnifier.   You’ll still need an ISO/ANSI compliant barcode verifier, and maybe a Barcode Training Seminar. Start with a simple magnifier. Verification 2009-06-11T14:07:00-06:00 http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/upc-35th-anniversary/ http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/upc-35th-anniversary/#When:15:19:01Z Happy Anniversary…to Us (Sort of)There are a few of us pioneers still around who know that this is a big year for the barcode industry. Probably fewer who also remember it.  This year the UPC celebrates its 35th anniversary. (http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=18972) On June 26, 1974 the first UPC was scanned at a Marsh grocery store in Troy, Ohio. And the world would never be the same (thank goodness).  This is an especially meaningful anniversary celebration for Fotel because we imaged the film master that was used to make the offset printing plate that was used to print the barcode—on a pack of Wrigley chewing gum. That was back in the days of film-based pre-press, for those of you who don’t have any idea what I just said. Well, I guess if you didn’t understand that, my further explanation was not helpful, so I’ll just leave it there.  To say that barcode technology, or the larger automatic identification technology, have come a long way is like saying “humans have a fondness for oxygen.”  The supply chain simply cannot function without the barcode. That is why it is a continuing mystery to me why barcode quality is not a part of most conversations about supply chain optimization. Well, maybe it’s not really that much of a mystery: barcode quality, which is THE issue in barcode performance, is not a sexy, high-technology, geeky subject that will dominate pub or patio conversations the way certain consumer electronic products do.  I recently heard someone question whether barcode quality was really an issue at all. “Scanners are so sophisticated and aggressive these days,” my friend opined, “there really isn’t a need for verification anymore.” After my blood pressure returned to normal I realized that there was some truth in this statement. Barcode Scanners are much more sophisticated and have continued to evolve, but Barcode Quality has taken on another identity besides the one that equates it to a break in the supply chain. At least one major retailer, for example, reports fines for poor-performing barcodes as revenue, growth revenue with a great future. This says more about driving the bottom line than about driving the supply chain.  But of course the world of barcodes is much broader than retail distribution and logistics. Now it includes pharmaceutical trace and track, security and access control, police evidence, personal identification—more applications than can be listed here, and more innovations virtually every day.   We are proud to have been among the pioneers in this fascinating and important technology. Happy Birthday to us all! Barcodes 2009-06-02T15:19:01-06:00 http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/coupon-lessons/ http://www.fotel.com/blog/post/coupon-lessons/#When:20:38:00Z Blog traffic is a pretty good barometer of the spleen and stress that people are feeling these days, and the web has been awash with anger and outrage over the Oprah-KFC debacle.  Enough has been voiced about “fraud” and who is stupid and who is to blame. Another opinion about that won’t add anything meaningful. But the incident is an opportunity to learn something about couponing. It’s the same lesson that all businesses can share. That lesson is:Don’t prepare for what you think will happen.Prepare for the very worst that you can imagine will happen.Then add another 20% to that scenario.And then, you just might somewhere near to being prepared.  But there is even more important learning to be taken from the Oprah-KFC incident. Now I really am going to speak to the choir and the deaf ears that reside in and beyond the rest of the congregation. And here is that learning. It’s all just people.Most of the time they are doing their best.Sometimes they make mistakes.  I used to be angry when a corporation or organization or government body made a mistake, and the first reaction was over-the-top venom, outcries for legal action and loud, vocal abuse.Later in my life, I just got sad.  Now, even later in my life, I mostly just note it and put it aside. It is not the main event. It is not where the real rubber is kissing the pavement. It is at least a mistake of equal or greater proportion that the one in question, and at best a massive distraction. At the end of the day, it helps and changes nothing.What would help? What would drive change in situations like the Oprah-KFC mistake?  How about if people accepted the rain checks that KFC is offering, along with their apology, and moved on to more important injustices. I can recommend a few that are truly more important and worthy of our outrage. Barcodes 2009-05-22T20:38:00-06:00