VPAT and ACR
What is the difference between VPAT and ACR? Do you need one?
August 29, 2023
Read more
Donate
Donate
A comprehensive comparison of three technologies that provide access to product information, but do not offer the same ability to find, identify and use products independently.
Imagine a supermarket shelf holding twenty boxes of cereal.
They are similar in shape and size. One contains chocolate, another contains nuts, and another is the variety a customer usually buys. Somewhere on each package there is a code that provides access to ingredients, allergens, nutritional information or recycling instructions.
On paper, that sounds accessible.
Now imagine that the person standing in front of the shelf cannot see the boxes.
Before checking a single ingredient, they must solve a much more basic problem:
Where is the code? Which side of the package is it on? Where should the phone be pointed? Does the detected code belong to the box being touched, or to the one beside it?
This is the problem many presentations about accessible packaging overlook.
The technology is often assessed from the moment the code is already inside the camera's field of view. For a blind person, however, the main barrier may be getting the code into view in the first place.
It is therefore not enough to ask whether a code can be read.
The entire journey must be considered:
Once these six stages are considered, one conclusion becomes clear:
Not every technology described as an accessible code provides the same level of independence.
This article compares three solutions that are often discussed as though they were closely equivalent, even though they are technically very different:
All three improve the experience in some way compared with a conventional QR code. However, they do not share the same design priorities, they do not provide the same detection margin, and they do not leave the same amount of work to the user.
Based on the architecture of each technology, its published capabilities and the task it is designed to solve, the hierarchy is as follows:
There is nevertheless enough public information to answer an essential question:
What problem does each technology solve, and how much effort does it still require from a blind person?
Commercial pages frequently use words such as detect, read, scan and recognise. The difficulty is that these words can refer to different stages of the experience.
The phone recognises that some kind of code is inside the camera's field of view.
The app announces that the code belongs, for example, to a food, household cleaning or personal care product.
The app communicates the precise name, variant, format or size of the product.
The person can reach ingredients, allergens, instructions, warnings, nutritional information or additional content.
A system may detect from a certain distance that a code exists, while still requiring the person to move much closer before the exact product can be identified.
On a shelf containing ten similar products, the distance at which the exact item is identified is generally more important than the distance at which a broad category is announced.
This distinction is particularly important when comparing NaviLens and Zappar, because their published figures do not always refer to the same stage of the process.
The conventional QR code was not designed specifically for blind people.
To use one in the usual way, a person must:
A sighted person corrects these steps by looking at the screen. If the phone is pointing too high, they lower it. If the code is out of focus, they move closer or farther away.
A blind person does not have that visual reference.
They may move the camera around the package while waiting for a sound or vibration, but they do not know whether the code is on the opposite side, near the bottom, hidden by another product or printed on the neighbouring package.
That is why a QR code leading to an accessible web page is not necessarily an accessible code.
The destination page may comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and work perfectly with screen readers. If the person cannot find the QR code that opens the page, the accessibility chain has already broken.
Accessibility must begin before the scan.
The original NaviLens code is a multicoloured visual marker. It does not contain a conventional QR code in the centre.
Its design combines:
Its entire surface is dedicated to one purpose:
To be detected quickly, from a distance, in motion and without requiring the user to know its location in advance.
NaviLens states that the marker can be read up to twelve times farther away than a conventional QR code, in a fraction of a second, without focusing and from angles of up to 160 degrees.
The maximum distance depends on the printed size. A large marker used in signage may be detected from more than thirty metres away, while a small marker placed on packaging will naturally be detected at a considerably shorter distance.
Read the official NaviLens technology documentation.
The main advantage of the original NaviLens code is not simply that it can present information through speech.
Its greatest contribution happens earlier.
The app can communicate:
RNIB explains that the user can point the phone towards a general area. They do not need to focus on the marker or know exactly where it is located.
Information can be delivered through speech, visual cues and haptic feedback. The system can also provide direction and distance information.
Read RNIB's guide to NaviLens.
This changes the shopping experience.
Without technology designed for location, the journey may look like this:
With a marker that can be detected while the product is still on the shelf, the journey may instead look more like this:
This is not merely access to information. It is access to the product itself.
RNIB and Kellogg's tested NaviLens on cereal packaging in 2020.
During the trial, the phone could detect the marker from up to three metres away when the person pointed in the general direction of the box. The app provided access to ingredients, allergens and recycling information.
The importance of the project was not limited to reading the label. RNIB highlighted that the technology enabled a person with little or no vision to locate a product on the shelf and access its information independently.
Read RNIB's report on the Kellogg's trial.
The deployment did not end with a small pilot.
Kellanova later added the codes to Kellogg's, Pringles and Cheez-It packaging across Europe. RNIB reported that more than two billion accessible packages had been printed.
Read RNIB's information about Kellanova's wider deployment.
This shows that a visually prominent marker can be integrated into industrial packaging processes at very large scale.
The packaging industry is not forced to choose the solution that is least visible. It can also adapt the design to support the independence of customers.
This is one of the most important advantages of the NaviLens ecosystem, and one that is easily missed when the comparison focuses only on the visual shape of the markers.
The same original NaviLens code can be read by two different applications:
Both applications use the same marker and the same detection technology.
What changes is the experience delivered to the person.
NaviLens is designed primarily for blind and low-vision users.
The app can use the phone to explore the environment continuously:
Instead of requiring the person to find the code first, NaviLens turns the marker into a reference that can be discovered from the surrounding environment.
NaviLens GO reads the same marker but provides a different experience.
When a person points towards the code, they may access:
NaviLens states that its technology can provide spoken content in 42 languages and that both applications can operate with the same marker.
Read the official information about NaviLens and NaviLens GO.
Not exactly.
The physical marker should not be understood as an unlimited store of data. In practice, the code acts as an entry point to associated digital content.
Zappar also provides tools for delivering extensive and structured product information.
It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that NaviLens is superior simply because it can “contain more information”.
The real advantage is different:
The same NaviLens code can deliver different, adapted experiences: orientation and independence through NaviLens, and visual or multimedia content through NaviLens GO.
On packaging, that content may include:
NaviLens presents packaging as a gateway to information that can be updated and highlights the possibility of delivering nutritional details, allergens, instructions, traceability, promotions, multiple languages and personalised content without overloading the printed design.
Read about NaviLens solutions for packaging.
The space occupied by the marker is therefore not necessarily space lost to marketing.
It can become a shared channel for accessibility, information and digital engagement.
NaviLens states that its app can be used without creating an account, providing an email address or sharing GPS location.
The company also states that code detection is performed locally and does not require invasive user profiling.
These characteristics are particularly relevant in accessibility.
A person should not have to disclose personal data simply to learn the ingredients, warnings or instructions associated with a product.
The associated content may require a connection when it is first downloaded or updated, but recognition of the marker does not necessarily depend on continuous network coverage.
Read NaviLens information about privacy and operation.
It is specifically designed so that the person does not need to know where the marker is.
It does more than open content. It can communicate direction and distance.
Codes can be detected while the phone or the marker itself is moving.
The person does not have to wait for autofocus or maintain an exact frame.
The marker can operate from highly oblique perspectives, with a published angle of up to 160 degrees.
The system is designed to explore an environment and recognise several markers, which is particularly useful in transport, signage and shelving.
NaviLens and NaviLens GO can provide accessibility, orientation and enriched content without requiring two different printed codes.
The platform can present content in the language configured by the user.
The marker does not need to reserve a central area for the structure of a conventional QR code.
A serious comparison must also acknowledge its trade-offs:
Its greater detection performance requires a clear decision from the brand:
Reserve enough visible space for accessibility.
Many companies already use QR codes for:
Replacing those processes completely may be difficult.
NaviLens AQR responds to this problem by surrounding a conventional QR code with an outer high-contrast marker.
The phone recognises the outer layer first and uses that detection to locate and process the QR code in the centre.
This creates two possible routes:
NaviLens describes the system as a high-contrast layer that wraps around an existing QR code.
Read the official NaviLens Accessible QR Code documentation.
According to NaviLens, its Accessible QR Code:
The figure of five metres must be interpreted correctly.
It does not mean that every small AQR printed on every package will always work from that distance.
The camera, lighting, reflections, surface, print quality and physical size all affect performance.
The important point is the design principle:
Instead of demanding greater accuracy from the user, the system attempts to increase the margin within which the user can be imprecise.
That is consistent with universal-accessibility principles.
Because NaviLens AQR must preserve a conventional QR code in the centre.
That QR code has its own structural requirements:
The original NaviLens code can dedicate its entire geometry to detection and orientation.
NaviLens AQR must balance two objectives:
Therefore:
NaviLens itself distinguishes the two systems: the Accessible QR Code improves access to an existing QR, while the original NaviLens marker also supports signage, location and orientation.
NaviLens AQR can be generated from a new QR code or added around one that already exists.
When the service's short link is used, NaviLens states that the destination URL and spoken text can later be changed without reprinting the physical code.
Depending on the selected plan and configuration, the service may include:
This means the physical code can remain on the package even when the following change:
However, legally required packaging information should not disappear from the physical product or depend exclusively on digital content.
A QR code can be manipulated by placing a sticker containing a different code over the original.
The user believes they are scanning the legitimate QR code but is sent to a fraudulent page. This type of attack is often described as QRishing or quishing.
A sighted person may notice a sticker, an unusual edge or a difference in the package design.
A blind person may have no equivalent visual warning.
NaviLens states that its applications can identify certain forms of alteration to the central QR code and block the reading when the Accessible QR Code has been changed or replaced.
This does not make the system invulnerable.
Brands still need:
Nevertheless, it introduces a protection that is particularly relevant for people who cannot visually inspect the code.
Zappar AQR retains a conventional QR code and adds a small pattern of dots and dashes around one of its corners.
This pattern, known as D3, allows applications compatible with Zapvision to detect the code from farther away than a standard QR code and provide spoken guidance.
The central QR code still works in the normal way for anyone scanning it with the phone's standard camera.
Read the official Zappar AQR documentation.
According to Zappar's published information, a recommended 15-millimetre AQR can:
This distinction is fundamental:
Detecting the category from more than one metre away does not mean identifying the exact product from the same distance.
At the greater distance, the person may hear that a food, cleaning or personal-care product is present.
To receive the exact product name, ingredients, allergens or instructions, they must move closer, to approximately 60 centimetres.
On a shelf containing several similar items, that difference matters.
Knowing that the camera has found “cereal” does not yet establish:
It would be inaccurate to describe Zappar AQR as a normal QR code with a superficial decoration.
The technology provides real improvements:
Zappar also states that it commissioned RNIB to conduct an expert review of its SDK and individual tests with blind and low-vision participants in shops and at home.
According to the summary published by Zappar, one of the findings was that distance matters, but so do ease of detection, clarity of information and integration with applications the community already uses.
We have not found a complete public report setting out the sample, methodology, tasks and quantitative results.
The available summary therefore comes from the supplier itself.
One of Zappar's strongest advantages is its integration with applications that many blind people already use.
The company states that its AQR codes can be recognised through:
This advantage should not be underestimated.
A person should not need a different app for every manufacturer, shop or product category.
Using familiar tools reduces fragmentation and the learning burden.
In this respect, Zappar offers a strong proposition:
Bring the technology into apps the community already uses, rather than always requiring a dedicated application.
Zappar does more than open an arbitrary web page.
Its system is designed to present structured information such as:
The conventional QR code can also continue to direct the wider public to a web page, promotion or augmented-reality experience.
It would therefore be wrong to imply that NaviLens can provide extensive information while Zappar cannot.
Both ecosystems can deliver substantial information and digital experiences.
The central difference is not the number of paragraphs they can hold. It is:
Zappar states that its AQR codes appear on more than five billion items, across 26 markets and hundreds of brands.
It also emphasises that the technology can be integrated into existing packaging workflows without requiring a complete redesign.
Read Zappar's information about accessible packaging.
Scale matters.
A technology with excellent performance but almost no presence on real products provides limited practical independence.
People need:
Zappar has demonstrated a significant capacity for multinational deployment.
Zappar presents the small, discreet and easy-to-integrate pattern as a major advantage.
Its documentation states that a complete AQR can be printed at 15 millimetres and that the modification has little impact on the package design.
From a business perspective, this brings obvious benefits:
However, the size and visual presence of a marker are not irrelevant to computer vision.
A smaller adaptation may mean:
This does not mean Zappar AQR is inaccessible.
It means the design attempts to balance accessibility with minimal disruption to the package.
That balance is not necessarily the one we would choose if the sole priority were to maximise the independence of a blind person.
Although the main comparison focuses on three solutions, the NaviLens ecosystem includes another technology that should be mentioned to avoid confusion.
NanoLens is a compact code designed to sit beside an existing QR code, especially on:
NanoLens does not surround the QR code in the way NaviLens AQR does.
It is printed beside it and acts as an accessible gateway. The application detects NanoLens from a distance, helps locate the neighbouring QR code and presents its content using speech, high contrast or enlarged text.
Read the official NanoLens documentation.
NanoLens is not included in the main ranking because it uses a different architecture and addresses a more specific use case.
Its existence nevertheless shows that NaviLens offers different approaches depending on:
The three main solutions can be understood through the design question each one appears to prioritise.
Its design question appears to be:
How can a person find this product or sign from a distance, even when they do not know where it is?
Its question appears to be:
How can we keep a conventional QR code while making it possible to locate and process without sight?
Its question appears to be:
How can we significantly improve a QR code, deploy it at scale and make the smallest possible change to the package design?
All three questions are legitimate.
The problem begins when the three answers are presented as though they create the same experience.
It may be tempting to place these figures beside one another:
Without context, however, that comparison would be misleading.
The NaviLens example uses an AQR measuring five centimetres.
The Zappar example uses a code measuring fifteen millimetres, or 1.5 centimetres.
The NaviLens marker in the published example is therefore more than three times wider than the Zappar example.
A larger code can normally be detected from farther away.
It would not be fair to state, without qualification, that NaviLens reaches five metres while Zappar reaches “only” one metre.
Zappar publishes at least two relevant distances:
NaviLens presents five metres as the scanning distance for a five-centimetre Accessible QR Code.
The public documentation does not establish whether the two measurements used:
For that reason, the published figures do not replace a direct comparative test.
Even though the figures cannot be treated as results from the same laboratory, the architectures show clear functional differences:
It is reasonable to infer from these characteristics that the NaviLens solutions provide greater potential tolerance of blur, movement, extreme angles and imprecise aiming, while Zappar offers a more visually discreet integration and very broad deployment.
This is a technical inference based on design and published capabilities. It is not the result of our own controlled experiment.
Technologies generally perform perfectly in promotional videos.
The package faces forwards.
The marker is unobstructed.
The lighting is good.
The phone is recent.
The person already knows roughly where to point.
A real supermarket is less cooperative.
The product may be:
The person may also:
A serious evaluation must therefore measure far more than maximum distance.
An independent comparison should record:
A technology is not better merely because it produces a larger number in metres.
It must be better across the complete task.
| Criterion | Original NaviLens code | NaviLens AQR | Zappar AQR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type of marker | Proprietary multicoloured code | Conventional QR code surrounded by a high-contrast marker | Conventional QR code with an additional pattern of dots and dashes |
| Readable with a standard QR camera | No | Yes | Yes |
| Primary objective | Locate, identify and orient | Make a conventional QR code locatable | Improve a QR code while changing the package as little as possible |
| Need to know its position in advance | Designed not to require this | Designed not to require this | Reduces the requirement, but the user must move closer to identify the exact product |
| Published moving-read capability | Yes | Yes | Yes, through compatible applications |
| Need for precise focus | No | No | Lower than for a conventional QR code |
| Published angle | Up to 160 degrees | Up to 160 degrees | Zappar describes greater tolerance than a standard QR code, but the documentation reviewed does not provide a directly equivalent figure |
| Published distance | Up to three metres in the initial Kellogg's packaging trial; proportional to printed size | Up to five metres for a five-centimetre marker | Approximately 1.10–1.15 metres for category detection and approximately 60 centimetres for the exact product with a 15-millimetre code |
| Spatial information | Direction, distance and guidance | Helps the user locate the QR code | Category and distance during the first stage |
| Detection of multiple codes | Yes | Depends on the application and scenario | We have not found sufficiently detailed public documentation describing an equivalent capability |
| Accessible applications | NaviLens | NaviLens ecosystem | Seeing AI, Be My Eyes, Envision and other integrations |
| Experience for the wider public | NaviLens GO: text, audio, video and augmented reality | Standard QR camera and the NaviLens ecosystem | Standard QR camera, web pages, promotions or digital experiences |
| Published language support | Spoken content in 42 languages | Translation and multilingual content depending on configuration or plan | Multilingual content managed through a CMS |
| Structured content | Accessible and enriched content through NaviLens and NaviLens GO | QR destination, spoken text and dynamic functions | Structured CMS containing detailed packaging information |
| Compatibility with existing QR processes | Low | High | High |
| Declared protection against QR replacement | There is no central QR code to replace | Yes | We have not found a clearly documented equivalent physical protection in the public material reviewed |
| Declared privacy approach | No account or GPS location required to use the app | Within the NaviLens ecosystem | Depends on the application and destination |
| Visual impact | Higher | Medium to high | Low |
| Published scale | More than two billion packages in the Kellanova case | A solution for new or existing QR codes | More than five billion items declared by Zappar |
| Greatest strength | Maximum independence for locating | Balance between accessibility and QR compatibility | Integration, scale and low visual impact |
| Main trade-off | A dedicated app and more physical space | More space than a minimal adaptation | The user must move closer to identify the exact product |
Note: all distance and capability figures come from supplier documentation and published cases. They do not come from a shared experiment conducted under identical conditions.
Recognising Zappar's genuine strengths does not weaken the comparison.
It makes the conclusion more credible.
Zappar may be particularly suitable when a company prioritises:
Its declared presence on billions of items also demonstrates that it is industrially scalable.
Zappar should not be described as false accessibility, a useless technology or a merely cosmetic modification.
The criticism is more specific:
Its priority of occupying little space and changing the design as little as possible appears to provide less margin for locating the exact product from a distance than the NaviLens solutions.
The advantage of NaviLens cannot be reduced to a single distance figure.
The ecosystem offers several levels of solution.
This range allows the technology to be adapted to the context instead of reducing the entire discussion to one code format.
All three systems can provide access to digital information.
But the physical marker is only the doorway.
The content behind it must:
A marker can be detected from many metres away and still lead to a terrible digital experience.
The accessibility of the marker cannot compensate for an inaccessible destination.
Product information should be organised around the user's needs, not the brand's promotional priorities:
Requiring someone to listen to a marketing campaign before they can learn the allergens is not a good accessible experience.
QRishing is not the only risk.
Other problems may include:
NaviLens declares a privacy approach that does not require registration, email, GPS location or invasive user profiles to use the app.
Zappar emphasises that product information is structured and controlled by the brand through its CMS, supporting the accuracy of ingredients, allergens and warnings.
These are different issues, and both matter:
A person should not have to choose between learning the ingredients and surrendering unnecessary personal data.
The European Accessibility Act began to apply on 28 June 2025, but it does not automatically require every food, cosmetic or supermarket product to include an accessible QR code.
Its scope covers specified products and services, including computer equipment, self-service terminals, smartphones, e-readers, banking services, e-commerce and certain transport and communication services.
The Directive aims to remove barriers and improve access to products, services and information within its scope.
Read Directive (EU) 2019/882 on the accessibility requirements for products and services.
Two oversimplifications should be avoided:
Companies should ask a more ambitious question:
Can a blind person find, identify and buy our product with independence comparable to that of any other customer?
The public documentation does not provide definitive answers to several questions:
RNIB's work with Kellogg's and its involvement in Zappar's evaluation are both relevant, but neither replaces a public test that directly compares the technologies under the same conditions.
At least two separate tests would be needed to settle the comparison with independent evidence.
Each marker would occupy exactly the same physical space.
This would show which technology makes the best use of an identical area.
Each system would be printed at the size its supplier recommends for packaging.
This would measure the experience created by a realistic implementation.
The sample should include:
Until that comparison exists, absolute claims should be treated with care.
But caution does not require us to pretend that the differences in design do not exist.
All three main technologies improve the experience compared with a conventional QR code.
Zappar AQR provides a genuine, scalable and structured solution that works through applications already used by many blind people.
Dismissing its value would be unfair.
NaviLens AQR gives the marker greater visual presence and, according to its published capabilities, provides a wider margin for blur, movement, extreme angles and imprecise aiming.
The original NaviLens code removes the compromise imposed by the conventional QR code and dedicates its whole structure to locating, identifying and orienting.
The same marker can also be used with NaviLens to provide speech, guidance and independence, and with NaviLens GO to provide text, audio, video and augmented reality for the wider public.
The resulting hierarchy is clear:
NaviLens also offers NanoLens for small labels and other situations in which space is especially limited.
Companies may reasonably decide that brand design, industrial processes, international deployment or compatibility with existing applications also matter.
What they should not do is hide the trade-off.
A small marker is not automatically bad.
A large marker is not automatically good.
But when one solution requires the person to move closer, point the phone more accurately and work out which product generated the announcement, that difference must be explained.
A package can find space for:
It is difficult to accept that it cannot reserve enough space to help a blind person find the product.
Accessibility should not be measured by how little it changes the package, but by how much it reduces dependence.
The objective is not for a company to say that it has added an accessible code.
The objective is for a person to enter a shop, locate the product they need, check whether they can use or consume it, and buy it without asking for help.
That is real inclusion.
No. It is a proprietary multicoloured marker designed specifically for long-distance detection, orientation and location.
No. NaviLens AQR retains a conventional QR code in the centre and adds an outer marker. The original NaviLens code dedicates its whole structure to detection and can provide additional orientation functions.
It is an application that reads the same original NaviLens code and provides visual or enriched content such as text, audio, video and augmented reality. NaviLens focuses on orientation and accessibility; NaviLens GO provides an experience for the wider public and for people who benefit from a simplified visual presentation.
That is not the most accurate way to describe the difference. Both ecosystems can associate extensive digital information with a code. NaviLens's distinctive advantage is that the same marker can provide accessible orientation through NaviLens and enriched content through NaviLens GO. Zappar's strength is the structured presentation of packaging information through its CMS.
Yes. It is a genuine improvement over a conventional QR code. It increases detection distance, communicates category and distance, and presents structured information. However, the person must move closer to identify the exact product.
Based on the published architecture and capabilities, the original NaviLens code provides the greatest potential for locating a product while it is still on the shelf.
NaviLens AQR appears to provide a wider margin for detection, movement, blur and viewing angle. Zappar AQR occupies less space and integrates with familiar applications and widely used industrial processes.
It is a compact NaviLens code printed beside an existing QR code, particularly on small labels. It helps the user locate the QR code and access its content in an accessible form.
There is no public independent study comparing both solutions under identical conditions. The conclusion in this article is based on their architecture, declared capabilities and the journey required from the user.
Computer engineer specialized in project management and web accessibility. Some say that the path of development is tough, as you have to constantly renew and update yourself. However, if you truly enjoy what you do, this path will be enjoyable... and I love it.
What is the difference between VPAT and ACR? Do you need one?
Do you know whether your website has to be ADA compliant or not? You can't miss this article.
Learn with us about the The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), in charge of safeguarding the rights of people with impairments.
Comentarios
No hay comentarios aún.