Several
times this week I have been involved in correspondence and conversations about
QR codes and various other forms of augmented reality. The theory continuously
presented to me is that print will be saved by the use of augmented reality. It
is at that point I stick my feet into the ground, as I think there is nothing
much further from the truth on this subject than this thought process.
Here is my reason why although it is a good tool, it isn't something that you
could or would use on every page, or for any extended period in a printed
magazine. When we are offered a QR code or other AR launch system in a magazine
that takes us to the Web, we are then forced to balance two separate devices.
The Web product/cell phone/tablet in one hand and a magazine in the other hand,
or on your lap, or perhaps on the desk, making neither a comfortable long-term
reading experience. Continually sending people from the printed magazine page
to an electronic device defeats the purpose of having a good print product and
the concurrent rewarding lean back experience that we are all so proud of as an
industry. As the old expression goes, putting lipstick on a pig only wastes
your time and annoys the pig. Although AR indeed has its valuable moments and
its usefulness, AR is a distraction to the nature of our printed products. In
this case it is trying to fake the electrification of the printed page. If I
wanted to get online, I would have done so. If I chose to read a magazine, why
send me somewhere online? Does that make sense to you?
