QR vs NaviLens: why a QR code doesn't guarantee accessibility

1. Reading distance

A standard 4×4 cm QR requires getting within 20–40 cm of the code. For a person with low vision or total blindness, finding and focusing the code is a balancing act: you need to know in advance where it is, point the phone, hold it steady and wait for the camera to focus. NaviLens reads from over 30 metres away and its optimal minimum distance is three times the marker size, so codes can be detected without physically "searching" for them. On a platform, a concourse or a hospital corridor, this means going from "impossible" to "natural".

The difference has practical implications: in a metro station, NaviLens codes can be placed on columns, walls and ceilings at the usual height of signage, and travellers detect them while walking with the phone in their hand. With a QR, the only way to know it's there is to have seen it before.

2. Need for precise framing

The QR requires you to point straight at it, with the code fully within the frame and without sudden movements. NaviLens detects multiple codes simultaneously within an angle of up to 160°, and tolerates rotations, obliquities, partial shadows and the natural movement of the user while walking. This changes the paradigm: the user doesn't look for the code, the code finds the user. For a blind person the difference is decisive, because there is no way to "aim well" at something you can't see.

3. Contrast, size and lighting

QRs perform poorly in low light, on glossy surfaces or when shrunk to fit small packaging. Under direct sunlight or in poorly lit interiors, the detection failure rate exceeds 25% according to user tests run by ONCE in 2023. NaviLens codes, thanks to their high-contrast colour pattern, work in highly variable lighting, hold their reading on cylindrical surfaces (bottles, columns) and remain detectable when partially covered, dirty or printed in small sizes.

4. Detection time

A user takes between 3 and 8 seconds to scan a QR in favourable conditions. NaviLens detects the code in under 100 milliseconds. The difference, multiplied by hundreds of daily interactions in a station, an airport or a supermarket, is the difference between being able to use a service and giving up on it. And for anyone who depends on voice readout, those seconds decide whether the system is a real aid or another obstacle.

The discussion around QR and accessibility usually focuses on visual impairment, but the barriers are wider. People with hand tremor, Parkinson's or multiple sclerosis struggle to hold the phone still long enough to focus a QR. People with cognitive disabilities or dyslexia can find the full journey overwhelming: locating the code, opening the camera, waiting, reading the link, deciding whether to trust it, opening the browser, waiting again.

On top of that comes the language barrier. A QR usually points to a URL in a single language. NaviLens automatically delivers the information in the user's system language, with support for 42 languages, which is especially relevant in airports, museums, international stations and tourist environments. There is no need to open a browser, translate manually or hunt for another language version: the content appears directly in the visitor's tongue.

Beyond technical specs, there is a deeper conceptual difference: the QR was conceived for sighted users who know where the code is. NaviLens was conceived from day one alongside ONCE, the University of Alicante and people with visual impairment. Accessibility is not a layer added on top; it is the origin of the design, the starting point from which the rest of the technical decisions flow.

This difference of origin explains why trying to "make a QR accessible" through braille labels next to the code, parallel audio guides or companion apps tends to produce fragile solutions. They end up being stacked layers that break as soon as lighting changes, materials wear out or the user doesn't know the system in advance. Real accessibility requires the first interaction to already be accessible.

Since 28 June 2025 the European Accessibility Act (EAA) requires companies and administrations to guarantee the accessibility of products and services across the European Union. In the digital domain, the law relies on EN 301 549 and therefore on WCAG 2.1 AA, which require perceivable alternatives for all non-text content and processes that can be operated without fine motor gestures. A QR placed on a package, a shelter or an information screen falls within scope when it is presented as a means of informing the user.

NaviLens meets EAA principles by design: information is delivered through audio, text and vibration; it does not require precise framing or controlled lighting; and its deployment is documented in a traceable way, which makes audits and continuous-improvement plans straightforward. Replacing "accessible" QRs with NaviLens at critical public information points is a direct way to reduce regulatory risk.

The switch from QR to NaviLens is not theoretical. Operators and brands in more than 30 countries have deployed it in environments where QR had proven insufficient:

• Public transport: MTA in New York, Transport for London, EMT Madrid, ATAC Rome and Vitoria's tram have installed NaviLens in stations, stops and vehicles.
• FMCG packaging: Kellogg's, Pringles, Cheez-It, Pampers, Nivea, Bimbo, Carrefour or ElPozo have added NaviLens to their packs to make ingredients, allergens and usage instructions accessible.
• Museums and heritage: Glucksman Gallery in Cork, MSU Zagreb, Tennoji Zoo in Osaka, museums of the City of Murcia or UNICEF interventions in Florence.
• Airports and stations: Medellín Airport, Versailles, Cartagena and Lleida interchanges.

The pattern is always the same: QR remains useful for payments or promotions, but essential information — where am I, where am I going, what's in this product, what are the opening hours — is now delivered by a system that anyone can use.

No. The QR is excellent for users without visual impairment and with time on their hands: paying a bill, viewing a menu, opening a promotional website, validating a ticket. It is free, universally compatible with any phone camera and reasonably robust in controlled environments. The problem is not technical, it's about fit: it must not be presented as an accessibility solution when structurally it isn't. Confusing the two cases leads to deploying thousands of codes that exclude, precisely, those who would need the information most.

The most sensible approach is complementary. In most projects both coexist: QR for fast transactional tasks; NaviLens for the accessibility and structured-information layer. It is not a "replace" decision but a "what do I use each for" decision.

For organisations that already have QRs deployed and want to add an accessible layer, the process is reasonably fast. A typical transition follows these phases:

• Audit information points: classify each existing QR as "transactional" (payment, one-off link) or "informational" (signage, ingredients, opening hours).
• Prioritise: informational points in critical public environments — transport, health, administration, packaging — move to NaviLens. Transactional ones can stay as QR.
• Generate NaviLens codes and the associated content (text, optional audio, languages).
• Physical deployment (printing, vinyl, integration into screens) and documentation for EAA audit.
• Train maintenance and customer-service teams.

• You need distance, angle and multilingual support: NaviLens
• Critical information for people with disabilities: NaviLens
• Payment, promotional link, PDF download: QR
• Complex spaces (transport, museums, hospitals): NaviLens
• One-off events, bar tables, fast ticketing: QR
• FMCG packaging with ingredients, allergens or usage: NaviLens