 

LINIUNIHHUIUWWHWI

 
 

$53 MlHHIWHIHIHHH

THS

 

THESlS

I

lllillllllﬂlWilllll'lliliillllilllliﬁll

31293 017141304

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
PRDBIEVJSABDCAUSESFORBARCXDE‘S 'I'HATWIILNUI‘SCAN

ATREI‘AILIEVEL

presented by

Nucharin Luangsa—Ard

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Master degree in 2393219 1n'___q

mm

Major professor

Date MM

0-7639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
Unlversity

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/98 WWW.“

 

PROBLEMS AND CAUSES FOR BARCODES THAT WILL NOT SCAN AT THE
RETAIL LEVEL

By

Nucharin Luangsa-Ard

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
School of Packaging

1998

1" is, I! l ‘I l

ABSTRACT

PROBLEMS AND CAUSES FOR BARCODES THAT WILL NOT SCAN AT THE
RETAIL LEVEL

By

Nucharin Luangsa-Ard

The purposes of this study are to examine package barcode quality and to analyze
the problems of nonscanning at the ﬁrst pass as well as suggest the reasons that cause the
failures. The research investigated the current scan-ability of common retail store
barcodes. Cashiers were observed and then the packages with barcodes that did not scan
on the ﬁrst pass will be collected and further examined. The details of examination and
veriﬁcation of samples were evaluated by using 2 methods: electronically gauged by
using PSC Quickcheck TM veriﬁer model # 850, and visual check.

Barcodes on labels including pressure sensitive labels and paper adhesive labels
have the highest percentage of problems. The causes of the problem barcodes on these
materials are not mainly come ﬁ'orn the material itself but come from poor printing
quality, low quality of paper and the wrong pattern of barcodes. The percentage of
problem barcodes from domestic is higher than imported package barcodes. Paper
adhesive label barcodes from domestic packages have the highest problem. For imported
packages, pressure sensitive label barcodes, has the highest percentage of problem. The
problems could be solved by improving the quality of printing by choosing the proper
types of label printer, using a better quality of paper label. Frequent use of veriﬁer to

check the quality is recommended.

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this research to my dearest parents (Pongsak and Sudapom
Luangsa-Ard) for their patience, love, kindness, and support. I will forever grateful.

I love you dad and mom.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This thesis could not be done without help of many people. I would like to have
this chance to acknowledge and thank some of these people.

First, I would like to thank Dr. Diana Twede, my major adviser, for gigantic help
and patience. I also would like to thank Dr. Robert D LaMoreaux and Dr. Linda Good,
graduate committee, for their support and inspiration especially Dr. LaMoreaux and his
family for being very supportive and encouraging me all the time.

Second, a gigantic thank you to all the members of my family. A special thanks
to my dearest parents (Pongsak and Sudapom) who always encourage and support me all
the time since without you everything couldn’t have been possible. You are the greatest
mom and dad that I’ve ever seen. Thanks to my sister and brothers (Anuwat, Linda,
Chalongchai, and Wudtichai) for being so supportive and wonderful sister and brothers.

In particular, I would like to thank my ﬁ'iends here, Manee Vittayanont, Ubonrat
Siripatrawan, Teeranut R., Rujida Leepipattanawit and her husband for their enormous
help and talent ideas for without your guys I wouldn’t have done this degree and this
thesis. Besides, I would like to thank all of my ﬁ'iends (Pomtip, Nusda, Maneerat and
Chatchai) in Thailand who always inspire and encourage me during the time I’ve been
studied here.

Finally, I would like to thank the individual listed below without these people,

this research couldn’t have been ﬁnished. If I have left your name off, please forgive me

iv

but know that I really oblige your help. Patricia Prus, Michelle Kreuger, Janet Sorosen.,
Poon Kongcharoenkiat and his wife, Tom Brandy, Glen Pettit, John Jackson, and all

staffs at Meijer#23.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................. ix

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 4
Introduction ............................................................................... 4
UPC (Uniform Product Code) Symbol Format ...................................... 4
UPC Symbol Characteristics and Structures ........................................ 6
Veriﬁcation of UPC Symbols ......................................................... 12
Scan-ability Problems ................................................................... 18
How to Improve Barcode Quality ..................................................... 20
Barcode Quality Goals .................................................................. 20
Reducing Printing Variation ............................................................ 28
Examples of Recommended Locations of Barcode in Various Types of
Packages .................................................................................. 32

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHOD ......................................................................... 34

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................... 37
Evaluation of Problem Packages by Their Material Types ........................ 37
Evaluation of Problem Packages Which are able to be Scanned by the
Veriﬁer .................................................................................... 40
Visual Inspection of Problem Barcodes Which were not able to be Scanned
by the Veriﬁer ............................................................................. 50

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 55
Conclusions ............................................................................... 55
Recommendations ........................................................................ 58

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1- Number System Character Designation ........................................ 5
Table 2- Encodation of Right and Left Character ....................................... 7
Table 3- Scan Reﬂectance Proﬁle Parameter Criteria Scoring ........................ 17
Table 4- Variation Associated with Printing Processes ................................. 32

Table 5- Percentage of Problem Barcodes Divided by their Packaging
Material and their Original Source ............................................. 39
Table 6- Percentage of Problem Barcode Grade on the Scan Reﬂectance
Proﬁle Scale ....................................................................... 41

Table 7- Percentage of Problem Barcode Grade on the Scan Reﬂectance Proﬁle
Scale Which Categorized by their Material Types ........................... 44

Table 8- Percentage of Problem Barcode Which Categorized by each Parameter
In Scan Reﬂectance Proﬁle ...................................................... 46

Table 9- Percentage of Barcode (Categorized by their Material Types) that have
Failed in each SRP Parameter ................................................... 49

Table 10- Errors and Problems of Barcode which cannot Scan by the Veriﬁer in
Domestic Package ............................................................... 51

Table l 1- Errors and Problems of Barcode which cannot Scan by the Veriﬁer in
Imported package ................................................................ 51

viii

LIST OF FIGURE

FIGURE 2-1 — UPC Standard Symbol ......................................................... 10
FIGURE 2-2 — Character Structure of UPC Standard Symbol .............................. 11
FIGURE 2-3 — Scan Reﬂectance Proﬁle Between a Good Contrast Symbol and

a Lower Contrast Symbol ....................................................... 21
FIGURE 2-4 — The Proﬁles of the Symbols Which were Printed by a Stencil

Technique ......................................................................... 22
FIGURE 2-5 — A Proﬁle of the High-Speed Toner Printing Process Symbol ............. 24

Chapter 1

Introduction and Background

For the past 20 years, barcode technology has been widely used in public
institutions such as grocery stores, libraries and manufacturing industries. “Barcode
technology provides many advantages for the users in many ways, for instance making
the check out processes of retail stores faster, easier, less costly and more accurate”
(Crouch 1996).

When a symbol on a market item is scanned, the scanner receptor will sense the
bar/space conﬁguration and convert it into a numerical language. After the resulting code
is translated to a distinctive manufacturer’s item, the computer software ﬁnds the price
and charges the item to the customer. “In many cases, scanning also automatically
adjusts inventory records and triggers a re-order” (LaMoreaux 1995).

A barcode symbol consists of a series of parallel bars and spaces with varying
widths. Information is represented by the width of the bars and the spaces between the
lines (Palmer 1991). The computer translates each barcode using a binary process, which
reads either ones (1) or zeroes (O) treating them as light and dark lines, respectively. The
scanner projects light onto the barcode symbol. The light passing over a white bar will
reﬂect the light back into the scanner, while at the same time the dark bar absorbs the

light. This simultaneous sequence of absorbency and reﬂectance is performed by the

l

scanner and is relayed into a computer. Using a speciﬁc processing program the light and
dark bars are converted into a readable language.

Since the barcode has been widely used, the Universal Product Code (UPC)
system has been set up by the Uniform Code Council. The UPC is an internationally
accepted method of identifying products, serializing shipping containers and clearly
communicating other important business transaction data, such as purchase order
numbers, expiration dates, and lot numbers in a standard machine readable format.

The aim of the UPC standard is to improve communication between trading
partners by setting an exact but ﬂexible method of uniquely identifying products and
package in human readable and machine readable formats. Therefore, the UPC system
has deﬁned rules for barcode symbols, in order to standardize the “language” (Cardais
1993). These include:

- Rules for assigning stock keeping unit (sku) numbers to individual items called

consumer units. A consumer unit is the lowest marketable unit of sale for a

speciﬁc product and its code consists of all 12 numerical digits.

- Rules for assigning unique serial numbers to cartons and shipping

containers of consumer units.

- Rules for assigning sku numbers to intermediate packages and shipping

containers of consumer units.

- Rules for communicating secondary information such as purchase order

numbers, lot numbers, expiration numbers and other types of data

communicated between trading partners.

The quality, or scan-ability, of UPC symbols is essential. Poor printing or
insuﬁcient contrast between the light and dark lines can cause scanning failures in such
cases, a clerk may need to scan such a symbol multiple times and/or manually key in the
code, resulting in ineﬂiciency and possible errors. This research focuses on the scan-
ability of barcodes and packages printing factors responsible for barcode quality.

Observations in a real retail site will identify items with barcodes that do not scan
on the ﬁrst pass. The items will be analyzed to identify the sources of the scanning
problems.

There are three objectives of this research. The ﬁrst objective is to examine
package barcode quality. The second objective is to analyze the problems of non-
scanning at the ﬁrst pass and suggest the reasons that cause the failure of ﬁrst time
scanning or non scanning barcodes. And the third objective is to compare the quality of
package barcodes between domestic and imported packages. Solutions for improving
barcode quality will be recommended to decrease the number of poor quality package
barcodes.

The second chapter has been written to provide the essential background about
barcodes and the veriﬁcation standard. Chapter 3 deals with the details of the research
method used in the experiment and data analyzing. Chapter 4 then lists the results of the
study. Finally, chapter 5 presents a summary of the ﬁndings as well as the author’s

recommendations.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

This chapter provides a literature and information review of trade journals, books,
seminars, the UPC Symbol speciﬁcation manual and American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) Guidelines for barcode print quality. First, the format of the UPC
symbol is presented, showing the purpose of each character. Next, the physical
characteristics of the UPC symbol are described, followed by a description of the current
methods for verifying the scan-ability of UPC codes. The last two sections of the
literature review will explore scan-ability problems and known methods for improving
barcode quality.

UPC (Uniform Product Code) Symbol F ormjat

The UPC symbol consists of a machine-readable barcode and a human readable
interpretation of each barcode. There are two versions of the barcodes, version A and E,
with diﬂ‘erent uses for each version. Version E is used for small packages.

The Version A symbol is the regular version that has 12 digits. The ﬁrst digit is
the number system character, the next ten digits are additional information characters,
and the last digit is the module check character (U CC 1994). The Version A code format
is as following:

SXXXXX XXXXXC

Where

S = Number system character

X = additional information characters

C = module check character

The initial number system character designates the type of product as shown in

Table 1.

Table 1: Number System Character Designation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Character Speciﬁed Use
0 Regular UPCs (source-marked products)
2 Random-weight items, such as meat and produce
3 National Drug Code
4 For using without code format restrictions and with check digit
protection for in-stored marking

5 For using on coupons

6,7 Eula UPCs (source-marked products)

1,8,9 Reserved for uses unidentiﬁed at time of this writing

 

 

The UPC consumer unit code has 12 diﬁerent UPC digits, which are divided, into

three parts as follows (Cardais 1993):

- The ﬁrst part consists of 6 digits, which are assigned to each company by the

Uniform Code Council (U CC). Each company will have its own Manufacturer’s ID

number. No two companies are assigned the same numbers.

- The second part consists of 5 digits, which each company assigns to each of its

products. In the 5 digits, each company has 100,000 item numbers for each

Manufacturer’s ID number. If companies need more than 100,000 item numbers, they

will need to apply for an additional Manufacturer’s ID number from the UCC.

 

- The third part of the UPC number is a single calculated check digit, which is
dependent upon the ﬁrst eleven digits of the UPC number. The check digit catches
transposition errors before they are sent to the computer.

These twelve digit numbers are unique to each of the manufacturers and to their
speciﬁc item or product.

The check digit, which identiﬁes the encoded number system, is found in the left
margin of the symbol.

Version E is the “zero suppressed version”, used for symbol marking on small
packages. Some of the zeroes that can occur in the UPC are left out. For example, code
012300 00045 would be encoded as 123453. The version E code has format as follows;

XXXXXX
UPC Symbol CWstics and Structures

The UPC Symbol has been very precisely speciﬁed. Two dark bars and two light
spaces represent each character or digit of a code. Each module consists of seven data
elements in each character. A module can be dark or light. The symbol size can be
varied within a speciﬁed range, which depends on the acceptable quality range of the
printing process. Generally a larger symbol is better. The symbol has to be able to be
read by a simple hand held scanner. The symbol should also have the code in a human
readable form for key entry when the symbol is not able to be scanned (U CC 1994).

The Version A code has some speciﬁc characteristics. The number system
character is located in the left margin of the symbol and then followed by the ten

additional information characters. As well as, the modulo check character which is

located in the rightmost position of the symbol. The nominal width of each dark bar and

light space is 0.013 inch. The nominal size area is 1.4984 square inches.

There are 113 modules in Version A, including nine in the left margin and nine in

the right margin designating quiet zones. The symbol itself begins at the left with the

guard bars followed by a number system character. Five UPC characters are on the left

side and ﬁve on the right, with a center pattern separating them. The right side

information characters are followed by the module check character and the guard bar.

Dark modules are represented by 1’s and light modules are represented by 0’s. The ﬁrst

two (guard) bars at the left and the last two bars at the right are encoded with 101; the

center bars are encoded with 01010. The encodation of the left and right halves of the

Version A symbol is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Encodation of Right and Left Characters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decimal Value Left Characters Right Characters (even
(odd parity) parity)
0 0001101 1110010
1 0011001 1100110
2 0010011 1101100
3 0111101 1000010
4 0100011 1011100
5 0110001 1001110
6 0101111 1010000
7 0111011 1000100
8 0110111 1001000
9 0001011 1110100

 

 

 

(Note. The left hand characters use an odd number of modules to make up dark bars

while the right hand character use an even number.

 

Check Character Calculation Chart

 

 

 

 

Position 12 l 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
(number (check
system digit)
character)

0 l 2 3 4 5 0 1 1 2 3 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The check digit is the result of a calculation. It can be derived by following these
steps:
1. Start from position 2 of the number from the Check Character Calculation Chart, and
then add up the values in only the even number positions. For example
3+1+0+4+5+0 = 10
2. Multiply the result of 1 by 3
10 x 3 = 30
3. Start from position 3 of the number, and then add up values of the digits in odd
number positions.
2+1+5+3+1 = 12
4. Add up the results of 2 and 3
30+12 = 42
5. The number that added to the result received through step 4 gives a number that is a
multiple of 10 is the check digit.
42 + x = 50 (multiple of 10 )
x = 8 (8 is the number that added to 42 results in a multiple of 10. Thus, the
check digit is 8.)
The human readable check digit character is shown in the right hand margin of the

symbol as shown in Figure 2-1

The Version E symbol has only six encoded information characters. It has one
module check character, which corresponds to the parity patterns of the information
characters. These characters are coded in odd parity and there are in even. The quiet zone

is the same as Version A.

O

Figure 2-1: UPC Standard Symbol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Left 6 Characters 0! Code R
ight 5 Characters of Code
/ /
Left-Hand Tall Canter Right-Hand
Guard Bare Pattern (1011 - a" Guard Bar Pattern (1011
M d |
4/ Number System $121.5? 0?”: a
Character
1' Character , ‘
l
l 1
Left Light Margin I I Right Light Margin
Minimum 9 Modules Wlde I l Minimum 9 Modulqude
l
l 04/
' l
l I
I i
l
I I
. I
I i
l
l
' i
' i
' i
' i
Number System i ' M°‘M°
Character ' I _ - ' I and
T O I 5 _ Character
V g l I_L 1
Manufacturer Item
ID Number Number
Characters Per
OCR-B Font

Figure 2-2: Character Structure of UPC Stande Symbol

Dark Module <

Light Moduleﬁ

 

7 Modules
2 Bars/2 Spaces

The Above
Character
Represents a
Left-Hand "6"
Which is

Encoded 0101111

11

1 Character ——§

 
 
 
 

7 Modules
2 Bars/2 Spaces

The Above
Character
Represents a
Left-Hand "0"
Which is

Encoded 0001 101

mum of UPC Svmﬂls

Veriﬁcation is a process of barcode quality checking in order to conﬁrm
conformance to speciﬁcation. The veriﬁer is a quality control gauge, which is used for
checking the symbol quality. Mostly, the barcodes that can be read by veriﬁers will be
able to read by all scanners (LaMoreaux 1995).

Veriﬁcation is essential for the producers of barcode as an expected quality
control process to assure that the barcodes meet the speciﬁcation as well as satisfy
customers’ requirements. In addition, veriﬁcation is important for users of the barcode
for a speciﬁed job to check if the barcode has a function, a need, and a use that meets all
required parameters.

There are two basic methods for barcode veriﬁcation: electronically gauged
veriﬁcation of the printed elements and visual inspection of the symbol and related items.
The two methods, used together, form the basis for comprehensive barcode quality
measurement.

Visual inspection incorporates the use of a ruler and magnifying glass. A ruler
which is made of transparent red plastic, is a good tool for measuring bar dimensions.
Besides, the red enables one to view the surface as scanner does and facilitates checking
the color of bars and background. A small magnifying glass can be used for roughly
checking bars and spaces in a barcode. The visual check is used to examine bar height
(truncated), human readable characters, symbol location, symbol size and color
(LaMoreaux, 1995).

When a barcode is put in a small space, the symbol can be shorter in height than

the ANSI speciﬁcation. But the barcode still has to be in the standard length. This is

12

called a “ truncated” barcode. Truncation may have an impact on a symbol’s scan-
ability, especially in ﬁxed scanners since the ﬁxed scanners require an oversquare
symbol to allow one beam to cut it for a suﬂicient read.

In most UPC codes, the human readable characters will show the encoded
numbers as well as the initial system characters and the check digit. The human readable
characters have to be printed in such a way as to provide optimum visible correlation
with the UPC symbol.

The location of the barcode should be checked to see if it meets a speciﬁed
standard. The symbol should not be located in an area that might cause scan-ability
problems. Normally, the preferred location for the UCC/EAN barcodes is on the
horizontal plane. On a ﬂat or curved surface packages the symbol should be at least 5
mm. away from any of the packages’ folds or seams, and on the small cylindrical
products the symbol should be printed vertically to the curve to decrease any possible
problems (Article Number Association 1997).

The size of the bars need to be checked to see if they are in the minimum% and
maximum % range of UPC speciﬁcation. A normal size is 100%, while a minimum is
80% and a maximum is 200% of the normal size. Generally, a large bar is better for the
scanning process.

The inspector should be concerned about if the color of the bars and background,
have negative scan-ability eﬁ‘ects. Since scanners use red light, the choice of colors for
the barcode is restricted to a solid color. Black, blue or green content is best for the bars,

and white, red or yellow for the background (Article Number Association 1997).

13

Electronically gauged veriﬁcation of the printed elements incorporates the use of
a specialized instrument to measure the parameters of the symbol. A veriﬁer is an
instrument which is used to measure some deﬁned attributes of the printed UPC symbol,
decode the barcode symbol as deﬁned by the speciﬁcation and visually inspect the
symbol with the corresponding proper barcode layout.

The ANSI (American National Standards Institute) methods are widely accepted
for verifying the barcode symbol (Uniform Code Council 1994). To measure the quality
of a nominal UPC symbol or a barcode based on the AN SI/UCC5-1995 Quality
Speciﬁcation for the UPC Print Symbol, a veriﬁer must have 6 mil. aperture and 670 +/-
10 nm. wavelength (Uniform Code Council 1996).

In the ANSI Standard, veriﬁers classify Scan Reﬂectance Proﬁle (SRP) into nine
parameters. Four parameters are subject to pass/fail criteria and ﬁve are graded on a 5-
point scale.

(A) Superior

(13) Good

(C) Satisfactory

(D) Unsatisfactory

(F) Poor
The nine parameters of Scan Reﬂectance Proﬁles (SRP) are described in the following
paragraphs (American National Standards Institute 1988).

Edge determination or global threshold is the total amount of light space and

corresponding dark bars that are presented in a barcode. When the veriﬁer cannot ﬁnd

the same number of spaces as the standard speciﬁcation, it will report edge

14

determination. For instance, the version A barcode has 59 total spaces, 30 dark bars and
29 light spaces. Ifthe dark bar width is printed without adequate adjacent light space,
this barcode may fail edge determination. This attribute is graded on a pass/fail score.
A global threshold is a line, which is drawn halfway between the highest and lowest
reﬂectance points in the proﬁle and parallel to the direction of the scan; the proﬁle of
barcode will fail if any bars or spaces are missed by the line (LaMoreaux 1995).

Minimum Reﬂectance (Rmin) is a measurement that determines whether the
reﬂectance of the darkest bar is less than half of the lighter background. Failure will
indicate that the barcode printing is not dark enough relative to its lighter background.
R(min) is a pass/fail score.

Symbol Contrast (SC) is a measurement of the contrast between the lightest
background (Rmax = the highest reﬂectance value in a scan) and the darkest bars (Rmin
= the lowest reﬂectance value in a scan). If the contrast is not adequate, a scanner will
not be able to determine the difference between a bar and a space. SC has a scale of A-F.

Minimum Edge Contrast (ECmin) is the smallest diﬂ‘erence between bar and
space at each edge. ECmin is graded on a scale A-F. This attribute is related to symbol
contrast and modulation. The low symbol contrast and modulation scores always occur,
if the minimum edge contrast fails.

Modulation (MOD) is comparing the measurement of the intensity of narrow
spaces to wider space. Narrow spaces are observed by the measuring hardware as less
intense because of the smaller amount of space which is occupied. If the smaller amount
of space is occupied, the intensity is low. Modulation is scored ﬁom A-F. A low score

might indicate ink spread in the symbol.

15

 

Defects are categorized into two types: voids and spots. Voids are light areas in
the bar(dark area). Spots are dark areas in the spaces. Both kinds of defects can confuse
the scanners and cause them to read the defects as an additional bar or space within the
symbol. A low score on defects may be due to insufﬁcient ink (void) or unwanted
deposits(spots). Defects are scored ﬁ'om A-F.

Quiet zone(QZ) is the area of light area surrounding a symbol on the left and right
edges. The scanners will not be able to determine the location of the beginning and the
ending of the barcode, if other printing is too close to the barcode. The quiet zone is
measured on a pass/fail score. The quiet zone can be calculated from the average of
narrow bar or space (Z) multiplied by 10 (ANSI 1988).

Decode is determined by pass/fail score. When the veriﬁers can decode a symbol,
it indicates that the bars and spaces were successfully decoded into correct series of digits
and guard bars for the barcode speciﬁcation.

Decodability is scored from A-F. It is a measurement of how nearly and wells of
barcode printing relative to its scan reﬂectance proﬁle. Symbols which are printed with
well-deﬁned and exact edges exhibit high decodability. A low score on decodability will

refer to low barcode resolution and poor quality.

16

Table 3: Scan Reﬂectance Proﬁle Parameter Criteria Scoring

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parameter Score/Grade Criteria
1. Edge Determination Pass Conforming
Version A - 59 elements (30
bars, 29 spaces)
Version E — 33 elements (17
bars, 16 spaces)
Fail Non-conforming
2. Minimum Reﬂectance Pass 5 0.5 x R(min)
Fail > 0.5 x R(max)
3. Symbol Contrast A 2 70%
B 2 55%
C 2 40%
D 2 20%
F < 20%
4. Minimum Edge Contrast A 2 15%
F < 15%
5. Modulation A 2 70%
B 2 60%
C 2 50%
D 2 '40%
F < 40%
6. Defects A S 15%
B S 20%
C s 25%
D s 30%
7. Quiet zone A Meets minimum requirement
For quiet zone widths
Fails minimum requirement
F For quiet zone widths
8. Decode Pass Valid character and symbol
decode
Fail Invalid character and symbol
decode
9. Decodability A 2 62%
B 2 50%
C 2 37%
D 2 25%
F < 25%

 

 

 

l7

 

Wbility Problem_s

Barcodes are now considered a primary technology that is being used throughout
the world for commercial and industrial automatic identiﬁcation. Barcode technology can
save a large amount time and thus cost of manpower, although sometimes the technology
can cause problems for the users.

The main problem is the scan-ability of the barcode, which depends on the
barcode itself as well as scanners. The barcode (symbol) print quality is a signiﬁcant
factor, which aﬂ’ects the scan-ability of every scanner. In order to solve this problem, the
UCC has asked companies such as Kmart Corporation, and Bar Code System Inc. to
study the causes and effects of symbol quality.

According to the 1990 ﬁnding of Bar Code Inc., only 80% of the package
barcodes were successfully read. The ﬁrst scan failure rate of package barcode were due
to the poor print quality of the symbol. One retail chain estimates that if re-scans were
eliminated, productivity in its 128 scanning stores would be improved by more than 7.5%
and result in a $2 million saving annually (Shuman 1995).

Poor quality symbols cause four problems. They decrease productivity, increase
cost, decrease data integrity, and they cause consumers and employees doubt and
frustration because of scanning errors.

The K-mart study found that one sku with an unscannable package can result in
over 3 1,000 extra cost per month. In this 1991 study, 2,232 bags of Halloween candy
with poorly printed barcodes were sent to Kmart stores. These codes had to be hand-
keyed, 2,206 times in 50 stores between 10/20 and 11/16, because of the poor printing of

the barcodes. Normally checkout operators at these stores are trained to hand-key the

18

number after they have tried to scan the symbol 3 times. A hand-key transaction takes
about 10 seconds, which would result in an extra 273 hours in the case described. That
means in one month at the checkout trying to scan this item, at the minimum wage of
$4.25 per hour, K-mart would have paid an extra wage of $1,160 (Brandes 1996).

In December 1995 Ed Madigan & Julie Huﬁ‘man from AT&T Human Factors
Services published a study entitled “An Examination of UPC Quality”. It was found that
from 84 problem packages, 44% of them failed at least one level of barcode quality
evaluation. The failures were due to edge determination (27%) decode (29.7%) and
decodability (29.7%) problems, each respectively. These failures might be caused ﬁ'om
“ink spread” and “ragged or uneven bar” attributes (Madigan & Humnan 1995).

In addition, it was found that the major types of problem packages were medium
sizes plastic bags and tubs. The edge determination and decode/decodability failures,
which could indicate problems with space and bar and overall barcode resolution were
the main factors for this failures. Furthermore, the rectangular and barcoded produce
items accounted for 10.8% for each of the problem packages type. The effects of this
failures were due to edge determination, symbol contrast, decodability and quiet zone
attributes. The other problem package such as cellophane bags, small bags, bottles,
blister packs, cans, ﬂats, in-store barcoded and small items combined represented 43.2%
of all attribute failures ( Madigan&Hufﬁnan 1995).

Due to the problems that have been mentioned, people who work with barcodes
including manufacturers, retailers, researchers and UCC are trying to improve the quality
of barcodes. The following section describes some programs and methods which provide

barcode users and manufacturers useful information for producing good quality barcodes.

19

How to Improve Barcode 011an

The veriﬁcation section showed that the symbol quality of barcodes can be
measured in two ways. One is the technical process called veriﬁcation, the process of
comparing a printed barcode against an accepted set of speciﬁcations. The second is a
visual inspection. A third way to evaluate symbol quality is a practical scanning test. A
robust program of quality control combines all three evaluative methods.

An example of the combination approach is Kmart’s internal quality control
program ( Brandes 1996). The company constructed a series of checks, including visual
inspection, scanning and technical inspection procedures. K-mart’s visual inspection
procedure checks the human readable numbers for proper placement and the symbol size
for truncation and magniﬁcation. Other visual checks include quiet zone, symbol defects
such as ink/dirt etc., and proper location. The scanning test involves scanning the symbol
10 times in the same way in a store’s scanning environment. Ifthe symbol scans easily,
the symbol is accepted. If the symbol does not scan easily, a veriﬁer is used to perform a

technical evaluation and validate that the symbol has been printed to speciﬁcations.

Barcode ﬁnality Goals
In order to have a successful barcode system, Sprague Ackley (1990) from

Intermec Corporation recommends three quality goals: a good read rate, a dependable
printing process and a low cost. Each goal is discussed below.

There are three basic requirements to insure a good read rate: adequate contrasts
correct element count and element accuracy. The ﬁrst and most fundamental parameter

is contrast, which is the difference in reﬂectance between the dark areas and the light

20

areas. The contrastneedsto beinacceptablerangcwhenthebarcodeisreadandused
especially in a harsh environment. An example of a harsh environment is the
manufacturing process of Titanium Di-Oxide, which is a ﬁnely ground white powder.
The symbol was lighter and hard to read due to the eﬁ'ect from the color of Titanium Di-
oxide.

Figure 2-3 shows the differences in scan reﬂectance proﬁle between a good

contrast symbol and a lower contrast symbol (Ackley 1990)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

u

H

s i
z

a

.. . 1H ' i
r.

2

a:

lil i

[ LlnearPosltlon

a."

5

v

a

=

s

u

s

a

a

“““““ unear‘Posmounuuuu

21

Figure 2-3, the ﬁrst proﬁle shows the proﬁle of good contrast symbol because
there is a large difference between light and dark. The second proﬁle is a symbol from a
harsh environment where white industrial powder is presented. This environment can
make the symbol dirty and light that will be more difﬁcult for a veriﬁer to ﬁnd the
elements and correctly extract the element sizes.

Element count errors can occur because the scanner picks up an element which is
not supposed to be in the symbol or the scanner misses an element which should have
been presented. In the ﬁrst case, it usually occurs because of a printing defect such as a
spot or void. In the second case, it might be caused by printing which is uniformly too
dark or too light, or by severe environmental damage such as a’scrape. In some cases, the
error might be from incorrect encodation.

Figure 2-4: Proﬁles of Symbols which were printed by a stencil technique

 

 

 

(Ackley 1990)
3 i
3 .
‘5
E :

Linear Position

5 . l
3 l
g .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ﬁrst proﬁle in Figure 2-4 shows the desired effect of printing with an unusual
technique such as a stencil. A stencil technique which used to paint black bars onto a
light background, such as concrete. The symbol in Figure 2-4 is white paint on a black
tile. The ﬁrst proﬁle is white paint on a black tile where all the elements are present and
no extra element can be found. The second proﬁle will occur when an error in the
printing coincides with a particular scan path. In this sample the error is caused from
chips in the white paint on the dark background symbol. Then the symbol does not have
the correct element count and will not decode.

The other important factor for a good read rate is the sizes of the individual bars
and spaces. In all cases, if the widths vary too much, the scanner may think the
individual element is big when it is supposed to be small or a different size than it was
intended to be. That might force the scan to be rejected, and result in an unnecessarily
poor read rate.

The second quality goal of Ackley (1990) is to develop a dependable printing
process. All printing processes have an elemental set of print variables. It is necessary to
study and follow the recommendations of printer manufacturers. The environmental
parameters such as ambient humidity and temperature as well as printing tensions and
pressure should be highly controlled. Variables for several speciﬁc print processes will
be described later in this literature review.

After the printing variables have been considered, it is necessary to consider
the limiting factor of the parameter set for the particular printing method. For instance,
direct thermal printing is limited by the ability to make a dark bar. The background is

quite bright but bars may not dark enough for the scanner to read. The important

23

property, which governs the perception of the bar darlmess is the color of the scanning
light. Since direct thermal printing is quite sensitive to light color, then it cannot be used
with Infrared wavelengths if special printing stock is not utilized.

It is also essential that the printing technology should be in an acceptable range
for the use. The broader the range of operation, the easier to implement an application of
a printing technology. Usually, though the printing process has been carefully set up, the
printing will deviate from normal range. Then, the important step to make the process in
complete loop is to install a spot checking procedure when major changes occur in each
process, for example when the media in a thermal system is replaced or aﬁer a high speed
toner system has been used for a long time. Figure 2-5 proﬁle represents a symbol
produced with a high-speed toner printing process; when toner is not replaced soon

enough a poor read occurs.

ii 1

Percent Reflectance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

will I Liam} l l)

Figure2-5; show a proﬁle of the high-speed toner printing process symbol(Ackleyl990)

The last important factor to be considered for a quality control program is the symbol
cost. Usually, the barcode producers will try to lower symbol cost without affecting their
symbol quality by trying new product developments in media. One inexpensive method
of printing symbols is the wet ink process. The wet ink process uses an accurate ﬁlm
master and then makes the same symbol over and over again on a printing press.

Besides those quality goals, Sprague Ackley also recommends some speciﬁc methods
for controlling barcode print quality and methods for improving the quality of barcode
labels. These are described below.

Single pass printers which use ribbons or thermally sensitive labels have better print
quality than multi-pass printers. The single pass printers have better quality because a
measured and known amount of ink is transferred to the printed surface. The examples of
this type of printing technology are thermal transfer, impacted formed font and direct
thermal printers, while the impact dot matrix printer is included in multi-pass printing
technology. Though the impact dot matrix printers have lower print quality than other
types of printers, many computer companies are still using it due to its long utilized.

Impact dot matrix printers create the symbols by overlapping the dots to form the
bars. When a ribbon is new, the bars will generally be dark and uniform but the spaces
will be rather small due to the spreading ink. When the ribbon is used up, the bars will
become lighter and narrower and will have visible voids. Therefore, it is important to use
a good quality ribbon and monitor the amount of ink left on the ribbon in order to get
good quality barcode symbols when using an impact dot matrix printer (Ackley 1990).

Ackley (1989) suggests a quick and easy method to compare the size of

25

narrow bars to the narrow spaces of the symbol printed by dot matrix printers. This
method is called “the snip trick” which is done by snipping the label in half and shifting
the lower half sideways until a narrow bar on the lower halfmatches with a narrow space
on the upper half. The resulting comparison of narrow elements becomes clear, even
without magniﬁcation, and provides an easy way to make sure the narrow spaces are
equal to or bigger than the narrow bars.

Nicholas and Sevcik (1996) recommended that the producers of barcodes use a
proper material and printer combination; including the correct printing supplies such as
ribbon, ink and toner. One needs to have properly trained operators, a barcode
veriﬁcation system, and printer maintenance.

In the printer point of view, the authors pointed that there are many types of
printers with deﬁned application, some of them designed for speciﬁc materials. Do not
use a printer for an application for which it was not designed. If not the symbols might
have poor performance and might increase cost if the printer breaks down frequently.

In the supplies area, one should be sure that the supplies match the speciﬁcation.
The second consideration is to be sure that the application and service are in the proper
range temperature range in order to select the proper label and adhesive. The supplies
should be stored in a dry, controlled environment and should be kept away from sunlight.
The labels should not be stored too long since adhesives could dry out.

Proper training can ensure that the printers run eﬁciency with maximum output
and quality. The operators should clearly understand preventive maintenance techniques

and select the proper supplies as well as proper technical conﬁgurations.

26

Printer maintenance is essential: a clean print mechanism is extremely vital to the
performance of the printers. Moreover, it is important to check that the label path is free
of obstructions, one should check the printing environment such as dusty, humidity as
well as heat or cold since all of these element can effect the print quality of the labels.

After a quality barcode is printed, the other important factor is how to maintain
the barcode label quality. Miner (1992) provides considerations for choosing the suitable
label construction for in different environments. Before attaching label to products, the
manufacturers should consider if the products inside would have any eﬂ'ect on the label.
For example acid fumes, solvents, cleaning solution and alkaline liquids can corrode label
components, the oily dirty or rough surfaces may aﬂ‘ect the label adhesives, and
discontinuous surfaces can obstruct barcode scanning. Moreover, the ﬂuctuation of
temperature can be another factor of lowering barcode scan-ability.

Miner (1992) also made some recommendations to optimize label longevity. First,
the surface preparation is key to label durability. To wipe the surface with a dry cloth or a
wet cloth with solvent is a way good to prepare the surface for label application. For
pressure-sensitive labels, applying pressure during application can enhance the intimate
contact. Second, select more than one label construction to meet the varied demands of a
project, which will increase cost a little but will add greatly to barcode durability.

Finally, “the key to success is the optimum balance of printing technique, label layout,
symbology, code density, and label construction for the particular application”.
Willingness to over-engineer the label construction, use multiple label constructions and

code densities, where indicated, will pay dividends. The label is the ﬁrst link in the chain

27

of automatic data collection. A strong ﬁrst link assures ease and accuracy of data inpu ”
(l 992,p.23)
Reducing Printing Variation

Ackley (1994) recommends that “the key to scanning success is to understand
the variation inherent in each printing technology and to control that variation for the
least cost”. The variations are separated into printing variation and local and global
variations.

Most ordinary printing variation is tmiform, meaning that all the bars and
spaces suffer the same size change. The uniform variation can cause the bars to all get
bigger by the same amount or all the bars to get smaller uniformly. The problem will
have an effect with the scanner since the scanner can ﬁnd all the elements resulting in
sluggish scanner performance. The printing technologies that need the attention to
control the tmiform variation are thermal, impact dot matrix, laser toner(xerographic), ink
jet, laser etching and wet ink.

Local variation is caused by “spo ” or lack of printing in the bars “voids”. It can
effect the scanner since the scanner will ﬁnd too many elements causing the decode to be
rejected. Normally, dot matrix and ink jet printing technology will have the local
variation problem.

Global variations are the limitations that can affect the entire symbol. Usually,
the eﬂ'ect of global variations is too little contrast between bars and the backgrormd. It
can cause scanner problems by making it difﬁcult for the scanner to ﬁnd any bars and
spaces at all. Printing methods aﬂ‘ected by global variations are direct thermal, ink jet

and laser etching.

28

To provide more knowledge and understanding about those variations above
Ackley (1994) describes problems and some solutions for each type of printing
technologies. These descriptions are summarized in Table 5.

Thermal Transfer: Uniform variation is usually found in thermal transfer printing.
Since thermal transfer involves laying down an optically opaque ink on a paper or plastic
substrate, the scanner might see the bars bigger than they might look to the naked eye. In
order to be optimally read by the scanner, the bars have to be printed a little narrower,
around 10% of the actual size.

Direct Thermal: Uniform and global variation may occur in thermal printing.
Direct thermal is different from thermal transfer because direct thermal does not utilize
an opaque ink but turns a chemical coating on the paper dark with the application of heat.
Consequently, the bars will not be as dark as they are with thermal transfer and will not
show the substrate distortions found with the opaque inks. Therefore, direct thermal
labels should be darker than nominal and the bars should be slightly larger than the
spaces to compensate for the lack of optical density.

Impact Dot Matrix: Uniform and local variations are involved with barcodes
printed by impact dot printers. When a new ribbon is used on the printer, usually the bar
growth is excessively large but the symbol is still useful though it may show less depth-
of-ﬁeld in scanning. Since impact dot matrix printers typically use opaque inks, in order
to get optimum printing quality the bars should be a little narrower than the spaces when
analyzed visually.

Furthermore, old ribbons can be a major cause for poor scanning performance

with dot matrix printing. When the ribbons are used up the bars will be narrower and

29

lighter and the voids will occur. The voids will cause the scanner to think there are too
many elements and the read rates will become low. When the ribbon is extremely
depleted, the symbols will be nonscanable.

Laser Toner: Uniform variation is the most important problem with laser toner
printers. The problem sometimes comes from the software used to am the laser toner
printers. Since the software is made to graphically ﬁt a symbol into a given area, the
narrow element dimension may not come out as an integer multiple of the dot size.
Though, the resulting symbol looks perfect for the eyes, the quantization errors induced
by the graphical interface will cause problems with the widths of the bars and will cause
scanning sluggishness. Because laser toner printers cannot adjust, the only way to
improve print quality is to make all bars and spaces larger. On the other hand, the narrow
element size or “X dimension,” should be at least .013 inches or larger.

Ink Jet: Uniform, local and global variation can be found in ink jet printing.
Inkjet printers can print symbols directly onto packaging materials, which will reduce the
cost of labels. Though this process is hard to control, it is still widely used due to the cost
advantages. The uniform variations come from ink spread which occurred because the
substrate is too absorbent or the ink is too my. The local variation appears when
inadequate coverage of a bar results in voids, and ink splatter causes spotting. Global
variation happens when ink jet printing of barcodes on corrugated cardboard containers
that have inherently low reﬂectance characteristics.

Laser Etching: Uniform and global variation are the important problems that have
to be considered when using laser etching. The symbol in this process is made by

burning off the black material exposing lighter material underneath or by burning lighter

30

material with the laser to create darker areas for the bars. Typically, the global variations
are caused by low contrast and the uniform variations are caused by the software that is
driving the laser spot location. Carefully programming of the laser system and frequently
testing for the bar growth with a veriﬁer will be able to decrease those problems.

Wet Ink: The major problem with the ink jet process is uniform variation. A
veriﬁer is an ideally suitable instrument to measure and control wet ink processes.
Sometimes visual measurement might be a reliable method to check the symbol quality
since the wet inks are not opaque. In addition, the barcode printed with wet ink on a
plastic bottle will show many narrow elements hardly coming up to the centerline of the
reﬂectance proﬁle. This symbol can be improved by adjusting the ﬁlm master used in the
fabrication of the printing plate by making all the bars smaller and the spaces larger by

about 10-15%.

31

Table 4: Variation associated with Printing Processes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variation Printer Correction
Uniform Local Global

Thermal Transfer Bar smaller than Not applicable Not applicable
spaces

Direct Thermal Bars larger than Not applicable Not applicable
spaces

Impact Dot Matrix Bars smaller than Change ribbon Not applicable
spaces when light

Laser Toner All elements larger Change to pixel- Not applicable

based program

Ink Jet Increase ink Decrease ink Print with white ink
viscosity viscosity

Laser Etching Bars smaller than Increase laser spot Spaces more diffuse
spaces overlap

Wet Ink Decrease ﬁlm Use ﬁlm master or Not applicable
master bars pixel-based program

 

 

 

 

Examples of Recommended Locations of Barcodeﬂn Various Typ_es of Packages

 

One of the important factors that aﬂ‘ect with scan-ability of barcode is the location

of barcode. The location of barcode should be suitable for diﬂ‘erent types of scanner:

horizontally mounted ﬁxed laser scanners and vertically mounted ﬁxed laser scanners.

Though, there is no location that suits all scanners completely, the recommended position

32

 

mostly suits most types of scanners and dose not have problems for any particular type.

There are some recommended locations of barcode which divided by their packages

types. The locations are as following: (Article Numbering and Symbol Marking 1995)
-The location of barcode on bottles and jars: in a wrap-round label of the bottles
or jars, the symbol should be located on the back near the base of the label.
-The location of barcode on boxes, cartons, and cubic tubs: the symbol on these
types of package should be located on the left side of the package when looked
from the front. It should be located towards the base with the light margin far
from edge at least 5 mm.
- The location of barcode on metal boxes: this category includes non-cylindrical
metal containers such as cans for processed meat, sardines and motor oil. The
symbol should be taken to avoid scams and should be located on the back, near
the base.
- The location of barcode on beaded cans: the symbol should be located to avoid
any bead and oriented with bars perpendicular to the beads.
- The location of barcode on printed wrappers: this category includes paper,
plastic, ﬁlm, or foil wrapper around rectangular or cylindrical products. Ifthe
package has the design in the front, the symbol should be located on the reverse
on the right hand side. Ifthe package does not have a design front, the symbol
should be located on the overlap end of the wrapper, on the right hand side. The
symbol on margarine wrapped butter should be not closer than 5 mm. of the

crease, fold or comers.

33

Chapter 3
Research Method

This research empirically investigates the current scan-ability of common retail
store barcodes. The researcher will observe the behavior of typical cashiers and identify
packages with barcodes that do not scan on the ﬁrst pass. These packages will be
analyzed to ﬁnd the reason for the scan failure. This chapter discusses the research
method including selecting of the store, data collecting details, and the details of the
examination and veriﬁcation of samples using two methods: electronically gauged
veriﬁcation and visual check.

The retail store where this research took place is one of the big “hypermarket”
retail stores in Michigan. It is included in a chain of retail stores that are widely used for
research. The chain is one of the nation’s hundred leading retailers, and carries
approximately 102,000 items per store including food, hardware and soft goods, etc. The
stores have various kinds of products that provide the greatest chance of getting various
types of packages’ barcodes.

The researcher observed the cashiers scanning the barcodes. In this retail site
NCR Class II scanners were used at every check out counter. The problem packages
were taken from the customers and then new packages were given in stead. Packages

with barcodes which did not scan the ﬁrst time were recorded and collected for further

34

investigation. Observation was made about 4 hours per day for 7 days. Four different
cashiers were observed over each one-day period. The number of problem packages that
were collected during the observation period is 65 items.

The second step of the procedure was ﬁrrther investigation of the packages that
did not scan the ﬁrst time. Imported packages and packages made in the US were
separated ﬁ'om each other in order to compare the extent and nature of the barcode
problem in the packages. Moreover, the problem packages were categorized by package
material types such as plastic bag, paperboard, ﬁlm overwrap, tags and paper wrap. Then
each barcode was inspected for various aspects such as the quality of printing, color of
the barcode, and the color of the package, in order to examine if the contrast of barcode
and package is in the acceptable range or not. The inspection was done by both visual
inspection and electronically gauged veriﬁcation.

For electronically gauged veriﬁcation, the PSC Quickcheck TM veriﬁer model
#850 (produced by PSC Inc. in New York) with a pen wand (660 nm. wavelength 06
mil.) was used to analyze and identify the characteristics of each barcode. The
Quickcheck TM 850 has a laser veriﬁer which performs pass/fail testing of dimensions
and formats quality barcode such as average bar deviation, encodation, ANSI
decodability test and quiet zone tests. The Quickcheck TM requires data using the Scan
Proﬁle Methodology speciﬁed in AN SI’s “Bar Code Print Quality Guideline”
(AN SX3. 1 82-1990). The Quickcheck TM will evaluate the data and provide a scan grade.
The barcode quality was measured according to the ten attributes outlined in the UCC
Quality Speciﬁcation for the UPC Printed Symbol guideline(l994) as described in the

literature review section.

35

To print the data, the veriﬁer was connected with PSC Quick-check Super Speed
Printer (QCSSP.PSC,Inc.,NY). After the barcode was scanned , all the result would
automatically print. The Quickcheck TM 850 would give the scan reﬂectance proﬁle,
decodability, symbol contrast, R(min)/R(max), modulation, edge contrast, defects,
symbol grade, traditional test, format tests and pattern error. The samples of print results

are provided in the appendix section.

36

Chapter 4

Results and Discussion

This chapter will discuss the results, which are divided into 3 sections: (1)
evaluation of problem packages by their material types, (2) evaluation of problem
packages which are able to be scanned by the veriﬁer (3) Visual inspection of problem
barcodes which were not able to be scanned by the veriﬁer.

Evaluation of Problem Packages by Their Material Types

 

The problem packages which did not scan the ﬁrst time (65 items), were ﬁrst
divided into domestic and imported packages. After that all packages were categorized
by their material types, and the data are shown in Table 5.

Fifty-two percentage of all problems were with labels. Pressure-sensitive label
had more (34%) problems than paper adhesive with liquid adhesive (18%). It was found
that the percentage of problem barcodes from domestic packages is higher than the
percentage of problem barcode from imported packages. In addition, 6 % of problem
packages were not identiﬁed by where they were made.

For domestic packages, paper adhesive label barcodes, have the most problems
(15%) see Table 5. This possibly because the solvent in the adhesive can corrode or
dissolve label components (Miner 1992). In addition, the rough surface of package

material can also reduce scan-ability of the scanners.

37

Six percent of the domestic problem barcodes were on plastic bags. This problem
may come from the reﬂectance of material which can reduce the scan-ability of the
scanners. Problem barcodes which were printed on paperboard (9%) were mostly caused
by poor quality printing such as void, spot, burr and ink spread. In ﬁlm-overwrap (6%)
the problem was caused from inappropriate location of barcode, while in paper tags (6%)
the problem resulted from wrong barcode patterns (bad left, right or center guard). The
last problem, barcodes on metal can (2%), had insuﬁcient contrast between the color of
the bars (metallic ink) and the background (can).

In imported packages, it was found that barcodes on pressure sensitive labels are
the highest problem (20%). The causes of the problem mostly came from poor printing
quality and low quality of paper. Barcodes on paperboard in blister pack and paper tag
have the same percentage (5%). The results of barcodes on paperboard in blister packs
possibly came from the reﬂection, which can impact the scan-ability of the barcode
inside. Problem barcodes in paperboard, ﬁlm over-wrap, paper adhesive label and plastic
bags resulted ﬁ'om the reasons mentioned above. The barcode problem with the plastic
can was the poor absorption between material and ink. Barcode on this material does not
have good contrast between bar and background and printing quality, making it dimcult
for the scanner to read the barcode.

One reason why so many pressure sensitive label problems were found in
imported packages is that there are more imported packages with pressure sensitive
labels, as part of a common strategy to market the “ same” package in several diﬁ‘erent

language by simply changing a label.

38

Table 5. Percentage of Problem Barcodes Divided by their Packaging Material and their

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Original Source
Total (%) for
Problem Barcode (%) each type of
package
Identiﬁed place Unidentiﬁed
Material type of place of
manufacturing manufacturing
Domestic Imported
Plastic bag 6 2 - 8
Paperboard 9 3 - 12
Film-overwrap 6 3 - 9
Tag(paper) 6 5 - 1 1
Paper adhesive label 15 3 - 18
Pressure adhesive label 8 20 6 34
(paper)
Paperboard in blister - 5 - 5
pack
Plastic can - 2 - 2
Tin can 2 - - 2

 

 

 

 

 

The Evaluation of Problem Packages which are able to be Smed bv the Veriﬁer

39

 

After separating the problem barcode by previous criteria, the evaluation of
barcode quality attributes was further done with the PSC 850 veriﬁer. From 65 items,
there were 41 items that the veriﬁer could scan, 24 items could not be scanned by the
veriﬁer due to their poor quality and wrong pattern. However, all 24 items were
evaluated by visual inspection and their data is shown in the next section.

Table 6 shows the percentage, by grade of nonscanable barcode packages, which
could be scanned by the veriﬁer. According to the ANSI Standard, the Scan Reﬂectance
Proﬁle has been graded on 5-point scale. Each grade has its meaning as follow; A=
Superior, B= Good, C= Satisfactory, D= Unsatisfactory, F= Poor. From the Table it was
found that both domestic and imported barcoded packages have the same percentage of
grade F symbols (32%). The percentage of grade D symbol on domestic packages (7%)
is higher than the percentage of imported package barcode (2%). The percentages of
grade C and B symbol of domestic package barcode are 10% and 2% respectively. The
percentage of grade C symbols on imported packages is 5%.

Generally, most scanners should be able to scan all grade C symbols and above.
They might have difﬁculty reading the grade D symbol and below. In this research, there
are grade C and B symbols that were not able to be scanned the ﬁrst time. The factors of
their failures may due to the environment of the scanners at that time as well as the
cashiers’ behavior when they were scanning the packages. For example, the glass of the
scanner might be not clear which might obstruct the way of laser to read the symbol.
Meanwhile, the position and length between laser’s source and packages can affect scan-

ability.

40

Table 6. Percentage of Problem Barcode Grades on the Scan Reﬂectance Proﬁle Scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANSI parameter grade (%)

Grade Domestic Imported Unidentiﬁed

A - - ..

B 2 - -

C 10 5 5

D 7 2 -

F 32 32 5
Total 5 1 39 10

100

 

 

 

Table 7 shows the percentage of the grade of problem barcodes which were
categorized by their material types. The data shows that barcodes on pressure sensitive
label has the highest total percentage of problem barcodes (34%) and the highest
percentage of grade F barcodes (29%). Likewise, the barcodes on paper adhesive label
have 22% of total problem barcodes and 15% of grade F barcodes. From the result, it
was found that the quality of barcode on pressure sensitive label and paper adhesive label
have high percentage of poor quality barcodes. The causes of their poor quality were
coming from poor printing quality, poor quality of the material (paper) as well as the
wrong pattern of barcode such as bad left, right, and center guard. Some of problem
barcodes on paper adhesive label have grade C which mean their quality are in the

acceptable range but the causes of non-scanning at the ﬁrst time might come from the

41

environmental factors of the scanners and cashiers’ behavior. In addition some of
barcodes are truncated which could obstruct the scan-ability of barcode.

The next material type that has signiﬁcantly high total percentage of problem
barcodes is paperboard. The barcodes on paperboard have 15% of total percentage of
problem barcodes and 10% of grade F barcode. The causes of poor quality of these
barcodes are mostly caused by the wrong pattern of barcode (bad left, right, and center
guard) and poor printing quality. There are some problem barcodes on this material that
have grade C and B which should be able to scan at the ﬁrst time, but they were not able
to be scanned. The causes of their failure might be the same as the grade C barcode on
paper adhesive label:

The problem barcodes on tag (paper) have the total percentage of 12% and the
percentage of grade F barcode of 10%. Most of barcodes on this type of material have
failed on scan proﬁle because they have bad left, right, and center guard, bad quiet zone,
and tnmcated as well. These factors can have directly effect with the scan-ability of
barcodes.

The problem barcodes on plastic bags have 7% of total percentage and grade F
barcodes. The main reason for these poor quality barcodes on this material is bad left,
right, and center guard of barcodes.

The last 2 material types that have the same total percentage (5%) of problem
barcodes are ﬁlm-overwrap and paperboard in blister pack. Barcodes on ﬁlm-overwrap
have failed the scan proﬁle because of their bad right guard and their wrong location.
Some barcodes were printed in the seam area which is restricted for barcode’s location

since the structure of the barcode might change and might lead to the failure of scanning.

42

Meanwhile, the failure of ﬁrst time scanning of barcodes on paperboard in blister pack is
come ﬁ'om bad right, left, and center guard of the barcodes.

From all reasons of nonscanable barcodes that are mentioned, the ﬁnding
indicates that the material itself is not the major factor that leads to the failure of ﬁrst
time scanning barcode. Thus, the main factors are the poor printing quality of the
barcodes and the wrong pattern of barcodes. In the next section and Table 8 will
compare domestic and imported packages by examining each failure parameter in SRP

(Scan Reﬂection Proﬁle).

43

Table 7. Percentage of Problem Barcode Grade on Scan Reﬂectance Proﬁle Scale Which

Categorized by their Material Types

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Material type Barcode grade base on ANSI standard Total
B C D F
Plastic bag - - - 7 7
Paperboard 2 2 - 10 14
Film-overwrap - - - 5 5
Tag (paper) - 2 - 10 12
Paper adhesive - 7 - 15 22
label
Pressure - - 5 29 34
sensitive label
Paperboard in - 2 - 2 4
blister pack
Total 2 13 5 78 98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After separating the problem barcodes by grade, all items were categorized by the

parameters in the scan reﬂectance proﬁle (SRP). The data in table 8 presents the

percentage of barcodes that have fail criteria in pass/ fail criteria and have grade F in the

5-point scale. These problem barcodes have failed the AN SI/UCC standard requirement

and they were categorized by each parameter.

The ﬁrst parameter is edge determination or global threshold. The percentage of

imported package barcode (34%) is higher than of domestic package barcodes (29%).

44

 

According to AN SI/UCC standard, the symbols that failed edge determination are these
which were printed with inadequate light spaces and dark bars. From this, it is
concluded that the imported package symbols may have higher problems of inadequate
printing space between light and dark bars than domestic package symbol. No package
barcodes had a grade F in the symbol contrast parameter.

The third parameter is modulation. The percentage of grade F domestic packages
(17%) is higher than the percentage of imported packages (10%). Modulation is the
comparing measurement of the intensity of narrow spaces to wide spaces. Referring to
the deﬁnition of modulation in literature review chapter, these data can indicate that the
domestic package barcodes might have higher problems with ink spread in the symbol
than the imported package barcode.

The next parameter is edge contrast. The percentage of grade F symbols on
imported packages is higher than the percentage of grade F symbol of domestic package.
This might be concluded that the domestic package symbols may have lower problem
with insumcient different contrast between bars and spaces at each edge.

The next parameter is defects. Defects can be divided into 2 types: voids and
spots. Voids are light area in the dark area are and spots are dark areas in the spaces.
From the Table8, the data shows that the percentage of grade F ﬁom defect of domestic
packages is lower than the percentage of grade F from this defect on imported package.

A low grade on this defect might be due to insufﬁcient ink (void) or rmwanted
deposits (spots). The imported packages had been shipped from oversea countries over
for a long time and long distance. During transportation, the symbols can be damaged by

the reaction between symbol and product itself or environmental factors such as

45

humidity, and product handling. These damages may have eﬁ'ects with the symbol and
may decrease the scan-ability of the symbol.

The last parameter is the quiet zone. The quiet zone is the area of light area
surrounding a symbol on the left and right edges. Ifthe symbol was printed too close to
other printing area on the package, the scanner will not be able to scan since it does not
know where the beginning and ending of the symbol. Both domestic and imported
packages have the same percentage of symbols that fail the quiet zone criteria (2%).

Table 8. Percentage of Problem Barcode which Categorized by each Parameter in Scan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reﬂectance Proﬁle
Place of manufacturing.

Parameters Domestic packages (%) Imported packages (%)

Edge determination or 29 34
global threshold

Symbol contrast 0 0
Modulation 17 10
Edge contrast 5 7
Defect 22 24
Quiet zone 2 2

 

 

 

All problem barcodes are categorized by where their material types and SRP
parameter Table 9. In the edge determination or global threshold parameter the
percentages of grade F barcodes on paperboard, ﬁhn-overwrap, tag (paper) and paper

adhesive label are the same (5%). While the percentage of barcodes on plastic bag that

46

 

have grade F in this parameter is also low, 7%. From all types of material in this
research, problem barcodes on pressure sensitive label (paper) have the highest
percentage of barcodes that have failed on edge determination (22%). This can indicate
that barcodes on pressure sensitive label were printed with inadequate light spaces and
dark bars which might be come from the printers as well as the poor quality of paper
itself.

The percentages of barcodes that failed in modulation parameter are as follow:
barcodes on plastic bag 2.44%, barcodes on tag (paper) and paper adhesive label 4.88%,
barcodes on ﬁlm-overwrap 4.88%, and barcodes on pressure sensitive label 14.63%.
According to the deﬁnition of modulation as mention before, it could be concluded that
the barcodes on pressure sensitive label have the highest problems with ink spread in the
symbol area. The poor quality of paper and improper of choosing the printing process
could be the factors that cause the failure. Normally, each type of printer such as
thermal, impact dot matrix, ink jet has its own problem and solution. Therefore, the
manufacturers should know the technique before printing their barcode. For the barcodes
on plastic bag since plastic is not a good absorbent material then ink spread could be
easily occurred when the barcodes were printed.

For the barcode that have failed in edge contrast parameter, barcode on ﬁlm-
overwrap and pressure sensitive label have the same percentage which is 5%. And
barcodes on paper adhesive label as well as paperboard in blister pack have 2% of
barcodes that have failed this parameter. This might be explained that the barcodes that
were printed on paper adhesive label and ﬁlm-overwrap have more problem of

insufﬁcient different contrast between bars and spaces at each edge than paper adhesive

47

label and paperboard in blister pack. However, this problem was not found in the other
types of material in this experiment.

The next parameter is defect. The percentages of problems that have failed in this
parameter are shown as following: paperboard in blister pack 2%, ﬁlm-overwrap and tag
(paper) 5%, plastic bag 7%, barcodes on paperboard and paper adhesive label 10%, and
pressure sensitive label 12%. According to the deﬁnition of defect in the explanation of
Table 6, it could be concluded that barcodes on paper (in both pressure sensitive label and
paper adhesive label) have signiﬁcantly high problem of voids and spots. Besides the
poor quality of the printer and low quality of the label paper, sometimes the symbols
could be stained the environmental and human factors during the handling and
distribution process which could decrease the quality of the barcodes.

There are 2 material types which failed in quiet zone parameter. The ﬁrst one is
tag which has 5% and the second one is paper adhesive label which has 2%. For this
parameter, the types of materials are not the reason of the scanning failure of barcode
scanning. The failure might be caused by the errors from manufacturers and printing
companies who were in charged of printing those barcodes. In addition, the wrong
pattern of barcode such as bad right, left and center guard is also the problem that is not
depended on the types of material. The data shows that barcode on pressure sensitive
label has the highest percentage of wrong pattern barcode (15%). The second high
percentage in this parameter is barcodes on paperboard. Besides, barcodes on plastic bag,
tag (paper), paper adhesive label, and paperboard in blister pack have the same
percentage (5%) of wrong pattern barcode. The last material is ﬁlm-overwrap which has

2% of wrong pattern barcode. Though, the problem of wrong pattern barcode has

48

nothing to deal with the types of material but it is the major problem that has been found

in this experiment. Therefore, this problem should be highly concerned before printing

or barcoding the symbol.

Table 9. Percentage of Barcode (Categorized by Their Material Types) that have Failed

in Each SRP Parameter

 

Problem barcodes which categorized by material types and SRP parameter (%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Material type Edge Symbol Modula Edge Defect Quiet Wrong
determi- contrast -tion contrast zone pattern
nation
Plastic bag 7 - 2 5 7 - 7
Paperboard 5 - - - 10 .. 7
Film-overwrap 5 - 5 5 5 .. -
Tag (paper) 5 - 5 - 5 5 5
Paper adhesive 5 - 5 2 10 - 5
label
Pressure sensitive 22 - 15 5 12 - 15
label (paper)
Paperboard in - - - - 2 - 5
blister pack

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49

 

Visual Inspection of Problem Barcodes Whichwere not able to be Scanned by the
XQliﬁﬂ’

From the 65 problem packages, 24 items could not be veriﬁed by the veriﬁer due
to their very poor quality. After examining all of the items by visual inspection, they
were categorized by different errors and problems as shown in table 10 and 11.

Table 10 shows the errors and problems of domestic package barcodes. After
inspecting each barcode, it was found that each had more than one error and problems.
For instance, from the Table, item No. 2 has the error and problems of wrong pattern and
poor printing quality. Item No.5 has problems of wrong color of bar and background and
truncated barcode. From the data in table 10, it can summarize that there are ﬁve items
which have problem and error of the location of barcode. There are 2 items that have bad
quiet zone pattern and there are 3 items that have poor printing quality. Errors and
problems of color of bar and background have the highest amount of problem symbols
which is six. For the errors and problems of wrong pattern, truncated and material itself,

there is only one item that was found in each type of error.

50

Table 10. Errors and Problems of Barcode which cannot Scan by the Veriﬁer in Domestic

Package

Item Location Bad quiet Wrong Color of bar Truncated Material Printing
No. of zone pattern and Quality
barcode

X

X X

X
X X

aﬁzgsoeoqamawuu—

X
6 l l 3

 

Total 5 2 1
Table 11. Errors and Problems of Barcode which cannot Scan by the Veriﬁer in Imported

Package

Item Location Bad quiet Wrong Color of bar Truncated Material Printing
No. of zone pattern and quality
barcode
X
X

l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

 

51

The data of errors and problems of barcode which cannot verify in imported
packages was shown in Table l 1. There are 4 package barcodes that have problems of
poor printing quality. The amormt of errors and problems of location of barcode and
trrmcated is the same (3 items). While the number of problem barcodes with bad quiet
zone is 2. There is only one item, with the problems of wrong pattern barcode and
material. Likewise, there is no imported package which has problem and error of wrong
color of bar and background.

Table 10&ll show the comparison of each problem and errors of barcode which
could not verify between domestic and imported package. The amormt of the problems
and errors of improper location of barcode in domestic package (5 items) is higher than
the amount of problems and errors in imported package (3 items). In domestic packages,
most of the problem package barcodes are on single cheese packages. The cause of this
scanning failure maybe because the barcode is printed in the seam area of the package.
Part of the barcode in the seam area could be changed from the original barcode that
might lead the failure of scanning. The rest of problem barcodes in this criterion might
be caused the wrong direction of barcode. The problem barcode were not printed
vertically to the package surface which could affect with the scan-ability of barcode. In
imported packages, the problem of improper location is caused by the shape of products.
Since the products are small ceramic dolls and glasses in heart shape, it is difficult to ﬁnd
the proper location to attach the barcode label. Thus, the barcode have to be labeled on
the products’ surface that leads to the failure of barcode scanning.

The second error is bad quiet zones. There are the same amount of problem

barcodes (2 items) in both domestic and imported package. Most of them have no quiet

52

zone; the scanners and veriﬁers cannot ﬁnd the beginning and the ending of the barcode.
For wrong pattern barcodes, there is only one item found in both domestic and imported
package. The problem barcodes do not have left, center, and right guards, which are
needed in every UPC barcode. It is a critical error that deﬁnitely aﬁ‘ects the scan-ability
of barcode.

There are 6 items that have problems and errors of color of bar and background.
All of them are domestic packages. Some of the problem symbols were caused by the
color of printing ink (metallic ink) which may decrease contrast between bars and
background and decrease scan-ability of barcode. The other problems come ﬁom the
wrong choice of the colors between bars and the background. Some problem symbols
were printed in restricted color such as red bar on yellow background and red-brown bar
on brown background. These colors will have negative scan-ability effect.

There is only one domestic package that has the problem of truncated barcode,
while there are three imported packages that have truncated problem barcodes. This
problem might be resulted from the product’s size. Since the size of products is small,
then the manufacturers have to shorten the height of barcode in order to ﬁt in the given
area. Most of imported barcodes in this criterion, are pressure sensitive label barcodes on
the products such as ﬂower and ceramic doll. As well as the problem barcode ﬁom
domestic package is a candy bar which the barcode had to be shorten to ﬁt in the small
size of bar. These trimcated barcodes have directly impact on the barcode scan-ability.

The amount of error and problem symbols from material of package is only 2.
One of them is a domestic package and another is an imported package. In both types of

package, the problem might relate to the reﬂectance of the material. Because the material

53

is too shiny, then the laser might have reﬂectance problem with the material that will
obstruct the scan-ability of barcode.

The last problem and error is printing quality. There are 3 problem packages
from domestic and 4 problem packages ﬁom overseas that have printing quality
problems. In both domestic and imported packages, the printing quality is very poor.
There are a lot of spots, voids, ink spread and burr in the barcode area which is

impossible for scanners and veriﬁer to read those barcode.

54

Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

From the evaluation of problem packages by their material type, barcodes on
paper adhesive labels of domestic packages have the highest problem percentage (15%).
Likewise, the highest percentage of problem barcodes on imported packages is 20%,
barcodes on pressure sensitive label. The possible causes of the problem of paper
adhesive barcode may come from the corroding or dissolving of solvent in adhesive that
had an effect on the barcode quality. Meanwhile, the causes of the problem in pressure
sensitive label barcodes mainly comes from poor printing quality, and low quality of
paper.

After verifying all problem barcodes, it can be concluded that from 65 items,
there are 41 items that can scan, and there are24 that cannot scan by the PSC850 veriﬁer.
From 41 items that can be veriﬁed, the data show that the percentages of grade F
barcodes in domestic package and imported package are equal (32%).

The other data received from the veriﬁer are the data of each parameter in the
scan reﬂectance proﬁle. The barcodes that failed in edge determination in imported
packages have higher percentage (34%) than the failed in edge determination barcode
from domestic packages. It can be summarized that the major cause of problem barcodes

is coming from inadequate printing between light spaces and dark bars in the symbol.

55

The other signiﬁcant problem is defects. In both domestic and imported packages, the
percentages of barcode that failed in defect parameter are quite high. Many problem
barcodes failed at the ﬁrst scanning because of voids and spots in the symbol.

From the barcodes which could not be scanned by the veriﬁer, domestic package
barcodes have major problem in wrong color of bar and background. Since the
manufacturers have used the restricted colors between bar and background, then these
restricted colors can have negative scan-ability eﬁ‘ect of barcode scanning. The other
essential problem is the problem of improper location of barcode. This failure is caused
by not printing the symbol in recommended locations suggested by UPC standard, and
instead of printing the symbols in the seam area of the package. In the imported package
barcode, the most problem barcodes found was the problem of poor printing quality of
barcode. The other important problems are the problem of wrong location of barcode and
truncated barcode.

According to the results in this research, the total percentage of problem barcodes
from domestic is higher than the total percentage of imported barcodes. This could be
summarized that the quality of domestic barcode is poorer than the quality of imported
barcode. However, the conclusion might not be a good reference since the total number
of the samples is quite small as well as the types of product are not various enough to
represent all package barcodes. Furthermore, there may have been more domestic
packages in the store.

In the material point of view, it was found that the problem barcodes on paper
label including paper adhesive label and pressure sensitive label have the highest

percentage of grade D and below barcodes (base on ANSI standard). Their percentages

56

are 22% and 34% respectively and their total percentage is 56%. The main causes of the
failure in these materials are poor printing quality, low quality of paper and the wrong
pattern of the symbols.

To enhance the conclusion about the material in the previous paragraph, the
problem barcodes had been further examined their scan reﬂection proﬁle. Barcodes on
pressure sensitive label have the highest percentage of barcode that have failed in each
SRP parameter. The percentages in each parameter of pressure sensitive label are as
following: Edge determination 22%, Modulation 15%, Edge contrast 5%, Defect 12%
and wrong pattern 15%. All parameters that barcodes on pressure sensitive label have
failed depend on the printing of the barcode. Then it could be concluded that the major
causes of the failure on this material are due to the poor quality of printing such as voids,
spots, ink spread, and insufﬁcient contrast between bars and spaces. Besides, the types of
printer that had been used might not be appropriate for the types of materials.

The other interesting cause of scanning failure that was found from this research
is coming ﬁ‘om attaching the pressure sensitive label on small size products. The
manufacturers may decrease this failure by printing barcodes on tags instead of labels.

The problem of wrong color and background might be corrected by using the
recommended color from UPC /ANSI standard that is mentioned in Chapter 2. This
solution increases the production cost since the manufacturers might have to redesign
their packages. However, this could protect the company hour the penalty charged by
retailers for their poor quality barcode. In the worst case, some retailers will not accept
the products that always have high number of problem barcode that will have huge effect

with the company.

57

Recommendations

To minimize the failure of ﬁrst time scanning, there are several recommendations

for manufacturers and retailers as following:

To decrease the problem of poor printing quality, low quality of paper and wrong
pattern, the manufacturers should be more selective about how to choose the types
of printing process and types of printers for their labels.

Try to print barcodes on tags in stead of labels on the small size products in order
to avoid the diﬂiculty of scanning due to the surface and ﬁgure of products
themselves.

Use the recommended color from UPC/AN SI standard for the barcodes and their
backgrormd.

The manufacturers and retailers should keep examining their barcodes’ quality.
When the problems occur, they should not hesitate to contact each other and try to
solve the problem.

Setting the seminars between the manufacturers and the retailers is highly
recommended in order to provide recent knowledge to each other.

Finally, to do more research of scanning problem could be one of the methods

that can decrease the problems.

58

APPENDIX A

Scan Reﬂectance Profile
with Features Detailed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Quick—Check 858 *
660 on. 06 mil Scanner
UPC-A: 1002 Has. Factor
0-2410012138-6

AveBar I -.02 X 0K!
DecodabltsI 702 (A) Symbol Totals 095 X

PCS I 982 OK! R(L)I762 OK! R(D)IOOZ OK!

SvabolContrI762 (A) R(nn)/R(mx)IOOZ (A)

ModulationI 682 (B) EdeeCtr<nn)I522 (A)
"Defects“ I 222 (C)

"so Leneth I ll OK! HodCheck Passes OK!

Bar Growth: lN TOL
'P C S“ : 0K
Traditional Tests -PASS-
Format Tests -PASS-

ANSI Parameters: (C)

Add’l P/F Checks: (P)

Format Checks: (P)
Profile Oualits Grade is (C)

Pessine I ANSI (C) II) ScanProfile PASSES

if ' 'séau'ai ‘éaaia' "50;; 3.0;) 3,é6;géé;
-._ __8fter_003_of 010 Scans:

---------- : ;********

rev-eerv‘

60

 

0783 Points Acquired

 

* Quick—Chcck 850 *
660 na. 06 mil Scanner
UPC-n: 1002 Has. Factor
7-6023680710-0

nveBar I -.10 X OK!
DecodabltVI 542 (B) Sumbol Totals 095 X

PCS I 82% OK! R(L)I?62 0K! R(D)I122 0K!

SvmbolContrI64Z (B) R(mn)/R(mx)I17z <a>

ModulationI 41% (D) EdeeCtr<mn)I262 (A)
"Defects" I 112 (A)

Mse Lensth I it OK! HodCheck Passes 0K!

Ber Growth: lN TOL
“P C S“ 8 OK
Traditional Tests -PASS-
Format Tests -PASS-

RNSI Parameters: (D)

ndd’l P/F Checks! (P)

Format Checks: (P)
Profile Quality Grade is (D)

Passine I RNSI (C) II) ScenProfile FAILS

 

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIezi‘.see+++-+++v----se-s+++-+ees
I Symbol Grade: ave. 1.0 I) D/06/660*
I after 001 of 010 Scans*
IIIIIIIIIeééi:::Istasaaaaaaaass*asaxaaasaa
Name: Date: ....-......

 

61

0780 Points Acquired

 

* Quick—Chock 850 *
660 no. 06 mil Scanner
UPC-A: 1002 Has. Factor
0-4431941830-9

stBar I +.4? X HI!

GlobThrs Fails (F) Sunbol Totals 095 X
Pattern Error: BAD Left Guard Pattern
Pattern Error! 890 Center Guard Patrn
Pattern Error! BAD Risht Guard Pattrn

PCS I 942 OK! R(L)I7GZ OK! R(D)I032 OK!

SsmbolContrI752 <n> R(mn)/R(mx)I052 (A)

ModulationI 46% (D) EdseCtr<nn)I342 (A)
“Defects“ I 482 (F)

Mss Lensth I 11 OK! HodCheck Passes 0K!

Bar Growth: OUT (+)
'P C S“ 8 0K
Traditional Tests -FnIL-
Fornat Tests -PASS-

QNSI Parameters: (F)

Add’l P/F Checks: (F)

Format Checks: (P)
Profile Quality Grade is (F)

Passins I RNSI (C) II) ScanProfile FAILS
????????1+22.3ICC.++++v++++++++;+éév++é++é
: Sumbol Grade! nus. 0.0 I) FIGS/660*

after 001 of 010 Scans*
*tttxttttttxtt*tttmti:ii:::‘:::::********#

 

Name! Date!

 

 

62

0605 Points Acquired

 

* Quick—Check 858 *
660 nm. 06 mil Scanner
UPC-A8 1002 Has. Factor
0-2000002103-2

AvsBar I -.19 X OK-

GlobThrs Fails (F) Svmbol Totals 095 X

PCS I 982 OK! R(L)I84Z OK! R(D)I00z OK!

SsmbolContr-84Z (A) R(mn)/R(mx)3002 (A)

ModulationI 012 (F) EdseCtr(mn)I0lZ (F)
"Defects“ I 482 (F)

Mss Lensth I 11 OK! HodCheck Fails BAD
Format Error: BAD Symbol Check Chr

Bar Growth! IN TOL(-)
' C S" i 0

Traditional Tests -PASS-
Format Tests -FAIL-

ANSI Parameters: (F)

Profile Quality Grade is (F)
Passing I ANSI (C) II) ScanProfile FAILS

 

I Symbol Grade: Avs. 0.0 I) FIGS/660*
* After 001 of 010 Scans*

Name! ____-_-___-_..._._ Date: _. .........

 

63

* Quick—Chock 850 *
660 no. 06 mil Scanner
UPC-A: 1002 Has. Factor
7-6023602709-6

AwsBar I +.12 X OK!

GlobThrs Fails (F) Symbol Totals 095 X
Pattern Error: BAD Left Guard Pattern
Pattern Error: BAD Center Guard Patrn
Pattern Error: BAD Risht Guard Pattrn

PCS I 992 OK! R(L)I682 OK! R(D)I002 OK!

SvmbolContrISGZ (B) R(mn)/R(mx)I00Z (A)

ModulationI 402 (D) EdseCtr<mn)I2?z (A)
“Defects“ I 50% (F)

"so Lensth I 11 OK! HodCheck Passes OK!

Bar Growth: IN TOL
'P C S“ I OK
Traditional Tests -FAIL-
Format Tests -PASS-

ANSI Parameters: (F)

Add’l P/F Checks: (F)

Format Checks: (P)
Profile Gualitv Grade is (F)

Passins I ANSI (C) II) ScanProfile FAILS
IIIIII++3::::::+*******+:::::::;#IIIIIIIII
I Symbol Grade: Ave. 0.0 I) F/06/660*
*

After 001 of 010 ScansI
xxxx:********#*###**tmtttttt#¥**#**t***tat

Name: Date: _..--..----

 

0662 Points Acquired

 

* Quick—Chuck 856 *
660 nm. 06 mil Scanner
UPC-E: 1002 Has. Factor
WNﬁﬂ$<$H$ﬂWﬂﬁ>

AwsBar I -.02 X OK!
DOCOdIbltV- 412 (C) ‘ Symbol Totals 051 X

PCS I 982 OK! R(L)I792 OK! R<o>-oez OK!

SvmbolContrI792 (A) R(mn)/R(mx)I00z (A)

ModulationI 57% (C) EdeeCtr<mn)I452 (A)
“Defects“ I 127. (A)

ﬂss Lensth I 06 OK! NodCheck Passes OK!

Bar Growth: IN TOL
'P C S“ : OK
Traditional Tests -PASS-
Format Tests -PASS-

ANSI Parameters: (C)

Add’l P/F Checks: (P)

Format Checks: (P)
Profile Qualitu Grade is (C)

Passins I ANSI (C) II) ScanProfile PASSES
******tilt##tttttﬂﬂttttﬂttﬂlﬂtﬂkttlﬁ”*1“
: Svmbol Grade: Ave. 2.0 I) C/06/660*

After 001 of 010 Scans*
*3xstat:matits:masttttmxmtxtmttmmmttmtxttm

Name: Date:

 

 

65

 

0579 Points Acquired
:

 

I I U
--m---m---o---
e 0 '

0744 Points Acquired

* Quick-Chock 850 *
660 nm: 06 mil Scanner
UPC-A: 1002 Has. Factor
0-7754005092-5

AwsBar I +.09 X OK!
GlobThrs Fails (F) Symbol Totals 095 X

PCS I 92% OK! R(L)I822 OK! R(D)I0SZ OK!

SvmbolContr=77Z (A) R(mn)/R(mx)I07Z (A)

ModulationI 502 (C) EdseCtr<mn)=37X (A)
“Defects" I 502 (F)

M59 Lensth I 11 OK! ModCheck Passes OK!
Bar Growth: IN TOL
"P C S" : OK

Traditional Tests -PASS-
Format Tests -PASS-

ANSI Parameters: (F)

Add’l P/F Checks: (P)

Format Checks: (P)
Profile Dualitv Grade is (F)

Passins I ANSI (C) II) ScanProfile FAILS

**************t*xttxmxmxmttmttttmt********
I Symbol Grade: Aws. 0.0 I) F/06/660*
*

After 002 of 010 Scans*
*xtammxtmama:*xxxttatxxxmttaxtttmxmxttmxtm

Name: Date: .........

 

66

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackley, H. S. 1998. ANSI Barcode Print Quality Standard, Section 2.2, Deﬁnitions
Section 3.3 Requirements. Intermec Corporation. WA.
Ackley, HS. 1990. Barcode Symbol Quality Control. Intermec Corporation. WA.

Ackley, HS. 1989. “Predicting the Performance of Bar Code Scanning”. Action line. 34-
39. Washington.

Ackley, HS. 1993. Print Quality Labels In-house. Intermec Corporation. Jan 1993.
No. 606463. Washington.

Ackley, HS. 1994. What you can do to improve the quality of your bar code labels.
Barcode Technology. 1-8. Washington.

AIM USA. Bar Code Quality Control- Why Barcode Veriﬁcation. Pennsylvania.

American National Standard. 1994. Quality Speciﬁcation for UPC. Print Symbol
Uniform Code Council, Inc. OH.

Article Number Association. 1997. Symbol Quality. Article Number Association.
London.

Article Numbering and Symbol Marking. 1995. Operating Manual. Article Number
Association of Ireland. Dublin.

Cardais, S.C. 1993. Compliance Labelling : How to do it. Quad II, Inc. PA.

LaMoreaux, R. D. 1995. Barcode and other Automatic Identiﬁcation Systems. Pira
International. Leatherhead.

Meijer, H. 1994. Thrifty Year : The life of Hendrik Meijer. William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co. Michigan.

Miner, J. 1992. “The Secrets to Bar Code Label Longevity: Careful Label Selection
Support successful scanning”. ID Systems. 12(1): 18, 20, 23. ‘

Nicholus, G. and Sevcik, K. 1996. “Ensuring Bar Code Label Quality”. ID systems.
16(4):73-74.

67

Palmer, R. 1991. The Bar Code Book. Helmers Publishing, Inc.
PSC 1994. User Manual: PSC Quick Check 600 Series. PSC Inc. New York.
Shuman, B. 1995. Symbol Quality Introduction. Bar Code System, Inc. Georgia

Uniform Code Council. 1986. UPC. Symbol Location Quicklines Manual. 1986 (Sep.)
“Uniform Code Council, Inc. OH.

Uniform Code Council. 1996. Guideline for Production Quality UPC Symbols. Uniform
Code Council, Inc.OH.

68

   

HICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
(ll\IWHIHHII‘IIIIIIIIIIHIHIIHIIHIHHHHIHHWWI
31293017141304