1) You need a smartphone to scan them. People without a phone handy can't scan them, so if you see an ad somewhere, and want to check it out later you can't just remember the URL. For example, you might not want to take out your fancy new superphone in the subway.
2) It's slow. If you have a current top-model, it might be tolerable, but it's easier to just type in a URL on many phones.
3) It only works ok in the best cases. QR-codes on non-flat packaging, or codes that you can only scan at an angle (people have different heights), or codes behind reflective glass (bus stops) are difficult to scan
4) You need an app before you can actually scan them. Right there you're already missing half your user base.
5) I don't know where the code points to. If you give me an URL, I can already know something about it (e.g. cnn.com/ad2), with a QR-code, anything could happen. No thanks.
6) It looks stupid when you're scanning the code.
No problem, just put them both. For smartphone (or at least not-completely-stupid-phone) users (which are very common in e.g. Japan, where the use of these codes is extremely widespread) qr-codes and the like are a godsend: typing a 50 characters url correctly is a pain, scanning codes is trivial and just about instantaneous.
> For example, you might not want to take out your fancy new superphone in the subway.
Not everybody lives in the bronx. That is FUD and a non-issue.
> It's slow. If you have a current top-model, it might be tolerable, but it's easier to just type in a URL on many phones.
No on both counts. Scanning a qr-code takes a few seconds, typing a URL (especially a complex one) and ensuring you get it perfectly right (allowing for a pair of errors) takes at least as long with a full keyboard. Use a 10key, and the qr-codes win handily.
On my 3 years old smartphone (iPhone 3G), it takes roughly as long to start quiQR and Safari, and from quiQR I only have to hit the "Scan" button and aim the camera at the code. In Safari, I have to dismiss the favorites (if no page is loaded yet), potentially create a new tab/page, tap the URL bar, and then copy the URL.
And as you can see in the video, it took 5s from tapping on the qr-scanning application icon to having the Youtube application open, . Would you be able to type a youtube video URL (including the dozen of semi-random characters identifier) faster without any mistake? Outlook not so good.
> You need an app before you can actually scan them.
These apps are widespread, and again in Japan (where these codes are used a lot) I believe phones can scan them natively. Similar spread of codes in western countries would likely lead to phones bundling native support for them (e.g. via image recognition built in the camera software)
> I don't know where the code points to. If you give me an URL, I can already know something about it (e.g. cnn.com/ad2), with a QR-code, anything could happen.
A qr-code is just text encoding, and it often is a URL. It makes no difference. It's trivial to pop up the textual version of the code and prompt for further action. That's what pretty much all code-scan applications I've used do.
> 6) It looks stupid when you're scanning the code.
Oh noes, the humanity. Furthermore, if you believe you look stupid when scanning a code, trust me that's nothing compared to copying a URL from a print to a phone.
qrCodes (and other similar codes) are just a physical encoding of binary data.
For a creative job in advertising, for example, it might be exactly right.
White text on a gray background, yeesh. Also, he felt the need to include two copies of the headshot.
It's illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race and other protected classes. So by extension, it's best practice to avoid asking applicants for their race or asking them for a photo, lest you give the appearance that it's a factor in the hiring decision.
But I've never heard of rejecting someone outright for sending an unsolicited photo. That's just crazy. Would you also reject an applicant who had "President of African-American Student Union" on their resume because it belies their race?
Well, likely he wouldn't, but we can be sure that he would reject someone outright for having "President of the European-American Student Union", can't we? Charitably, this is because there is essentially no chance anyone would ever file a lawsuit for rejection of the second candidate. I'm sure you can draw the uncharitable version yourself. :)
It's both wrong and illegal to reject a candidate based on their race, regardless of what race that is. And I am pretty sure the OP was not implying otherwise. Further, I assure you that white people file discrimination lawsuits too.
// Out of interest have you a reference to a white person winning a race discrimination case, preferably with regard to being hired?
Also why should "an applicant who had 'President of African-American Student Union' on their resume because it belies their race?"? Surely a person of any race can be president of the African-American SU, or are they allowed to be racists?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1077466/London-Under... is a case of failing to protect a white worker from bullying whilst at the same time being extremely protective of black workers.
I understand the 'spirit', but not everyone interprets that 'spirit' the same way, and some companies still have the guts to not ignore people simply because of what's on their resume - photos included.
If I see someone lists attendance at an historically black college, or has a traditionally feminine name, I can already deduce their race or gender without a photo, and I can do whatever discriminating I want to do using that information.
Company policies that throw out applicants because they've attached included any sort of photo at least as damaging (because of the loss to the company of potential talent) than lawsuits over Title VII violations, but it's much harder to quantify that.
It's going to get harder and harder to even guard against this stuff as email clients merge social media information in while reviewing applicants. Oh, unless you just buy and use crappy web-based application software that requires 14 screens that only works in IE6 - then you'll be 100% safe from any chance of getting interested and qualified applicants (and lawsuits too).
Edit: This would lead me to believe the law is somewhat up for interpretation and it's not cut and dried, since AA is a pretty big company and I would assume their legal dept had to sign off on this kind of thing. That being said, they are pretty well known for being sketchy and creepy.
What benefit does a company gain by knowing what an applicant looks like prior to determining if the resume makes the skills cutoff?
It's a racist, ageist, sexist hiring culture. If you didn't go to the right schools, don't have a "piston" or your mailing address is from a ghetto, you're fucked.
Here's some examples
When I have brought this up with my friends they fall back to the "customary" excuse. If the only reason a company won't look at my CV is because they don't know what I look like than it's not a place I would ever consider working for.
IOW, you can include a photograph on your resume, but the likely result of sending that resume to a large corporation is that it will be deleted immediately.