I have seen on many packages the proportions of the UPC code rectangle changed. The height and scale of the bars does not seem to be relevant to a a proper read. Just don’t squoosh the numbers and it should turn out fine.

Still, I would hope someone with more expertise can confirm or deny this.

Book jacket designers generally regard bar codes as pieces of ugly that just have to be dealt with. Reducing bar codes can be done without compromising the ability of scanners to read the bars.

At our publishing house we run the bar code so the height of the tallest bars — those at the extreme left of the ISBN bar code — is about 3/8”.

We do not compress the width of the bar code. That’s because compressing the width of the overall bar code will compress the width of individual bars. This can cause difficulties with scanning devices. You do not want that.

We began this re-sizing 9+ years ago, when I came here as design manager. I’m guessing that we have put nearly 800,000 individual books on the market since then [that’s copies, not titles]. We have had not a single complaint that our bar codes were not readable.

There are other ways to lessen the visual impact of bar codes without making them un-scannable. We often put them in picture boxes with rounded corners, and fill those boxes with a tint value appropriate to the overall design. This softens them a bit. You have to be careful that the background is not too dark. I use BarCode Pro to make bar codes, and this software allows you to scale as you make the bar code. So they come into Quark & InDesign at the right size.

The best treatment I ever saw of a bar code was on the back of a book about swamps and wetlands. The designer obtained a line drawing of reeds and then stuck the bar code amongst the reeds. It was nearly invisible. This was fine aesthetically, but I do bet it played hob with store clerks trying to figure where to aim the scanner.

I hope this is some help. It is late at night that I have seen this, so I may be too late. Good luck. Post here with the results, please.

What do poetic dogs do? They bark odes. Good night.

powers

In my experience (wich is little with barcodes), you can reduce the height of the bars, but you can’t reduce it proportionately.

Hoped it helps…

Alex.

Thanks Will with this much more complete answer than mine.

Check with your supplier. I wouldn’t scale the code, but consider ordering it at 80%. Different rules apply to different codes.

This company has always been a reliable source for me, with good depth of knowledge.

http://www.symbology.com/default.asp

There are specifications regarding minimum and maximum sizes for barcodes. These are governed by the UCC (Uniform Code Council) which manages the UPC, EAN, and other barcode systems (at least here in the U.S.)

I don’t remember what the specs are off the top of my head, but I believe the maximum reduction was 80% (but that’s from the original standard, which may or may not be what you have to start with depending upon where you got your barcode from or what software setting you use to generate it).

There are specifications regarding the vertical truncating of barcodes as well. Truncating is definitely more robust than scaling. The 3/8 inch spec that Will mentions seems to me right about the limit.

Toleration for variance may differ by the intended outlet or market. I think general retail outlets may be less tolerant of adjustments to UPCs than book stores may be to EANs, for instance.

i have had similar experiences to Will’s (since we’ve probably tackled similar challenges and situations).

The publisher I used to work for required both EAN and UPC on back covers (many books were destined for multiple outlets), so it was a nuisance to say the least. We also had to place the EAN and UPC in different locations so that there was no possibility of cross-scanning (though I always suspected that tales of this were apocryphal). I often turned the UPC 90° in order to save space where I had to run a headline. Last I knew, there were movements afoot to revise the EAN with ISBN-13 numbers to make the UPC redundant in the book industry. But I haven’t kept up with that development.

If you place a tint behind the barcode, make sure the color build has no more than about 10% K (better if there is none.) Once again, there are specs about the minimum percentage contrast between bars and background, but I don’t remember the numbers.

Some book manufacturers have the ability to test-scan a code on a proof before production. I would bet this is true in the DVD industry as well.

Hope this helps.

— K.

When I wrote last night, I was writing from home, and I could not recall the % of height reduction. Like Kent, I was thinking that 80% is correct. Now, back at work, I have looked at my BarCode Pro settings. & truth to tell, I do not see where the setting for the overall proportioning is. I know that when I started using Barcode Pro, I fiddled quite a while before I got a barcode to be the size I could tolerate, and that was scannable. Then when we went to OSX and I had to get the upgrade I had to start that jiggering all over again.

As for the tints: within BarCode Pro there is a function that allows you to test the combination of barcode color [100% K] against the tint you wish to fill the box. It will warn you if the tint is too dark for scanning.

I have always been happy with BarCode Pro, and have not ordered barcodes from vendors. I suppose that organizations which use many barcodes might profit by having them all generated at once by a vendor. For our small operation I generate no more than 30 barcodes a year, and BarCode Pro is swell. I can make a new one in moments.

powers

I’m usually told it can go down to 80%. Also that it can have a background tint as long as it’s composed of only yellow and magenta, I was always told no cyan or K in the background.

Barcodes to me are the visual equivalent of that awful noise the computer made when it logged on to a dial-up modem. Luckily with WiFi and broadband that noise is largely in the past.

I regularly have barcodes scaled to 80%, but I get the supplier to do that, rather than scaling it in the layout program, so that the line width reduction (to account for ink spread on press) is correct.

^ when you are doing big run flexo and odd low-end work like that it pays to offload some of the liability.

thanks to everyone for all the info. much appreciated. i got the code from my client so it could already be reduced. which means i WILL need to check with the supplier before messing with the size. thx jupiterboy for the link.