Re: OCR/barcode reliability

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 22:30:40 CDT

>> I find this claim unlikely if we are talking about OCR fonts like
>> OCR-A. At the least it is not supportable without some empirical
>> evidence. Strong counter-evidence is provided by the banking
>> industry, who process literally billions of checks every day, with
>> extremely low error rates, using OCR fonts.
> Banks use MICR not straight OCR. That's Magnetic Ink. And the MICR
> encoding is more redundant that straight OCR is.

Still?

I thought the MICR was something from the 1980s, and banks had
generally moved to pure optical now.

For example, from http://www.checkmagic.com/FAQ.htm:

> These special characters are called MICR (Magnetic Ink Character
> Recognition) characters because they were originally designed to be
> printed in a special magnetic ink and read using magnetic sensors in
> the banks' machinery. However, almost all banks (more than 90%) now
> use optical sensors (OCR -Optical Character Recognition) to read your
> checks. This means that the banks' equipment can read the MICR
> characters as long as they are printed clearly and accurately, with
> magnetic or standard ink or toner.
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Wed Jun 30 23:17:04 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT