This is a comment that I've heard before.
I just posted this comment below on a website that was discussing the advantages of 'embedded hidden codes' over 'Ugly QR' and thought it would be worth posting here as well.
(btw they aren't in case you didn't work out I was being ironic).
It's great that ‘any’ dialog is happening in Australia about the various 2D code technologies BUT I have to step in and comment here.
Your recommendation for people to use MyClick photo recognition invisible code technology is flawed. Hopefully you won’t delete this post but publish my comments so people reading your blog will understand the following points.
The first issue with MyClick (and numerous other 2d code vendors) can be found in the first sentence of their website.
"MyClick is a ground breaking and patented"
"Patented"= Equals license fees - there are no license fees or royalties required with QR code usage. None whatsoever and this is why QR codes has the widest spread usage of all 2D codes.
The second issue with MyClick (and numerous other 'photo recognition' vendors - lol love to know what they all have patented as there are so many of them) can also be found in the first sentence of their website.
"photo recognition Mobile Marketing Platform"
People often say QR codes are ugly but those that do haven't studied the human psyche of interaction.
QR codes are designed to be obvious. They are designed for people to visually recognise them and interpret “this is what I am meant to do here to 'interact' with this object”. They are designed so that people know what will be the outcome of that interaction.
For those of you that are 'look and feel' orientate people (for some reason it’s always magazine people instead of newspaper people) who think that QR codes are ugly and this ‘defined interaction’ is crap and meaningless, sure no problems – next month print your magazine so that the pages open left to right instead of the (western) norm of right to left and see how important ‘expected object interactions’ are.