Owen, compared to entering URLs, scanning a QR Code is way more efficient when looking at the overall volume of people accessing the online content. You may be faster on a BlackBerry when entering a 12 digit URL, but the purpose of QR Codes is to be scanned with all kinds of devices – all you need is a camera – for any kind of content. So the 12digit URL is just one use-case. There are many people who encode their business card in form of a vCard in plain text into QR. With this, there is not even an online communication going on. (src: http://www.matez.de/?page_id=7)

Personally I am thrilled about using 2D Barcodes to promote online content in the physical world. And that’s not only because I work in that area but also because I see an added value for both, the publishers and consumers. And until we all have downloadable virtual worlds, GPS, NFC on our handsets and all the necessary technology to use it ‘in the fields’ it will be some time. And even then a print is still cheaper than integrating an RFID chip.

Cheers,
Philip

The next best thing – again, IMO – is still SMS (not just banging the http://www.stufflinker.com drum, honest!) – ubiquitous, easy to use, familiar, known cost model, etc..

In terms of speed of entry with a QR code scan versus typing in a URL, I had in mind a long URL such as might be used to identify an item in a collection…. not a very readable URL, with a long identifying number for example. I accept that a Tiny URL could be entered more quickly with the current state of the art of iPhone hardware and QR software for it.

Paul

In general it would be quicker and more convenient for me to type in a tinyurl or equivalent (especially with a nice app that filled in the start of the URL for me). If all you are doing is providing me with a URL, QR has got to be quicker than typing in the URL – doing a quick comparison of going to http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com using QR or TinyURL I found that typing the TinyURL was approx 15 secs quicker to get a web browser and loading the web page – not v scientific, but I’m convinced TinyURL will win this everytime. So if QR is going to beat typing, it has to be easy to use – from what others have said, it seems likely that on Nokia handsets this is the case – while it remains clunky on the iPhone then I can’t see me using it unless I have to.

If I were to speculate (and why not) I would also guess that doing text recognition on a URL would not be a huge challenge at this point? (perhaps even via Webservice or email?)

So for me, the first, best, step that physical resources could offer would be to come with a TinyURL or equivalent. I’m often frustrated when reading the Guardian that the articles don’t come with URL at the end, as I often want to send them on to people, and end up having to find the article online to do so.

I agree that there is a lot more potential for bridging the gap between virtual and physical worlds – and offering services based on proximity is something that is already available – but perhaps not to a fine enough resolution to offer what you are suggesting yet – but we are starting to see experimentation with RFID to provide this kind of interaction (e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/sep/15/privacy.advertising, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/oct/16/internet-of-things-ipv6), and there has been work on integrating RFID readers with phone handsets for sometime (e.g. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,39172457,00.htm).