Author: simonmackay

Wirelessly transferring data between two devices in the same space

The industry has explored various methods for achieving point-to-point across-the-room data transfer and user discovery. This would avoid the need to use the Internet or a mobile phone network to share a file or invite another user to a game or social network. Similarly, it would be a way to exchange data with a device like a printer or an interactive advertising setup in order to benefit from what that device offered.

Methods that have been tried

The first of these was IrDA infra-red transfer working in a similar to how most TV remote controls work to allow you to change channels without getting off the couch. This was exploited by the legendary Palm Pilot PDA and some of the Nokia mobile phones as a way to “beam” one’s contact details to a friend or colleague with the same device.

Bluetooth pushed forward with the Object Push Profile and File Transfer Profile as methods for exchanging data across the room. This was typically useful for contact details, low-resolution photos or Weblinks and was exploited with the popular feature phones offered by the major phone manufacturers through the 2000s. This method was also exploited by the out-of-home advertising industry as a way to convey Weblinks or contact details from a suitably-equipped poster to suitably-equipped mobile phones set to be discoverable.

But Apple nipped this concept in the bud when they brought out the highly-popular iPhone. The concept has been kept alive for the regular-computer operating systems and for Android mobile applications but mobile users who want to exchange data would have to ask whether the recipient had an Android phone or not.

Bluetooth also implemented that concept with the 4.0 Low Energy Profile standard by using “beacons” as a location tool. But this would be dependent on application-specific software being written for the client devices.

Microsoft is even reinstigating the Bluetooth method to transfer files between two computers in the same room as part of the functionality introduced in the Windows 10 April Update. But I am not sure if this will be a truly cross-platform solution for Bluetooth as was achieved with the earlier Object Push Profile or File Transfer Profile protocols.

Apple tried out a method similar to Bluetooth Object Push Profile called AirDrop but this implemented Wi-Fi-based technology and could only work with the Apple ecosystem. It was associated with “cyberflashing” where lewd pictures were forced out to unsuspecting recipients and Apple implemented a “contacts only” function with contacts’ emails verified against their Apple ID email logins as a countermeasure against this activity.

QR codes like what’s used on this poster being used as a pointer to an online resource

The QR code which is a special machine-readable 2D barcode has the ability to convey contact details, Weblinks, Wi-Fi network parameters and other similar data to mobile phones. These can be printed on hard-copy media or shown on a screen and have a strong appeal with business / visiting cards, out-of-home advertising or even as a means for authenticating client devices with WhatsApp.

Facebook even tried implementing QR codes as a way to share a link to one’s Profile or Page on that social network. Here, it can be a secure method rather than hunting via email or phone number which was raised as a concern with the recent Facebook / Cambridge Analytica data-security saga,

The Android and Windows communities looked towards NFC “touch-and-go” technology where you touch your phones together or touch an NFC card or tag to transfer data. This has been exploited as a technique to instigate Bluetooth device pairing and implemented as a method of sharing contact data between Android and / or Windows devices. For a file transfer such as with contact details, the data itself is transferred using Bluetooth in the case of Android Beam or Wi-Fi Direct in the case of Samsung’s S Beam feature.

The Wi-Fi Alliance are even wanting to put up a Wi-Fi-based method called Wi-Fi Aware. Here, this would be used for data transfer and other things associated with the old Bluetooth Object Posh Profile.

This is implemented on a short-range device-to-device basis because users in the same room may not be connected to the same Wi-Fi Direct or Wi-Fi infrastructure network as each other. There is also the reality that a properly-configured Wi-Fi public-access network wouldn’t permit users to discover other users through that network and the fact that a typical Wi-Fi network can cover the whole of a building or a street.

But there could be the ability to enable data transfer and user discovery using Wi-Fi Aware but being able to use a Wi-Fi infrastructure network but allow the user to define particular restrictions. For example, it could be about limiting the scope of discovery to a particular access point because most of these access points may just cover a particular room. Using the access points as a “scoping” tool even if the host devices don’t connect to that network could make the concept work without jeopardising the Wi-Fi infrastructure network’s data security.

Applications

There are a series of key applications that justify the concept of “across-the-room” data transfer. Typically they either involve the transfer of a file between devices or to even transfer a session-specific reference string that augments local or online activity.

The common application here is for a user to share their own or a friend’s contact details with someone else as a vCard contact-detail file. Another common application is to share a link to a Web-hosted resource as a URL. But some users also use across-the-room data transfer to share photos and video material such as family snapshots.

In the same context, it could be about a dedicated device sending or receiving a file to or from a regular computer or mobile device as outlined below for advertising. But it can also mean having a printer, NAS storage or smart TV being a destination for a file such as a photo.

In the advertising and public-relations context, “across-the-room” data transfer has been seen as a way to transfer a URL for a marketer’s Website or a visual asset to an end-user’s phone or computer. For example, the QR code printed on a poster has become the way to link a user to a media-rich landing page with further explanation about what is advertised. Similarly some out-of-home advertising campaigns implemented the Bluetooth Object Push Profile standard as a way to push an image, video or Weblink to end-users’ mobile phones.

But “across-the-room” data transfer is also being used as a way for users in the same space to discover each other on a social network or to identify potential opponents in a local or online multiplayer game. I find this as a preferred method for discovering someone to add to a social network or similar platform I am a member of so that I can be sure that I am finding the right person on that platform and they are sure about it. Also, in the case of a local multiplayer game, the players would have to continue exchanging data relating to their moves using the local data link for the duration of their game.

Facebook even explored the idea of using QR codes as a way to allow one to invite another person whom they are chatting with to be their Facebook Friend or discover their Facebook Page. It is infact an approach they are going to have to rediscover because they are closing off the users’ ability to search for people on the social network by phone number or email thanks to the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

What does the typical scenario involve?

The users who are in the same area are talking with each other about something that one of them has to offer such as contact details or a photo. Or, in the context of advertising or other similar situations, there will be some prior knowledge that there is something to benefit from knowing more about the offer using an online experience.

One of the users will invoke the transfer process by, for example, sharing the resource or hunting for a potential game opponent using their device’s user interface. The other use will share a nickname or other identifier to look out for in the list that the initial user is presented.

Then the other user will confirm and complete the process, including verifying success of that transfer and agreeing that the contents are what they were expecting. In the case of adding another user to a social network or multiplayer game, they will let the instigating user know that they have been added to that network or game.

What does a successful across-the-room data transfer or user-discovery ecosystem need?

Firstly, it needs to be cross-platform in that each device that is part of a data transfer or user/device discovery effort can discover each other and transfer data without needing to be on the same platform or operating system.

Secondly, the process of instigating or receiving a data transfer needs to be simple enough to allow reliable data transfer. Yet end-users’ data privacy should not be compromised – users shouldn’t need to receive unwanted content.

The protection against unwanted discovery or data transfer should be assured through the use of time-limited or intent-based discovery along with the ability for users to whitelist friends whom they want to receive data from or be discovered by in the wireless-based context. Intent-based discovery could be to have the recipient device become undiscoverable once the recipient device confirms that they have received the sender’s data or, in the case of a local multiplayer game, the players have completed or resigned from the game.

Conclusion

The concept of “across-the-room” data transfer and user/device discovery needs to be maintained as a viable part of mobile computing whether for work or pleasure. Where operated properly, this would continue to assure users of their privacy and data sovereignty.

Article

We could be expecting more from distributed-Wi-Fi devices of the NETGEAR Orbi ilk thanks to 802.11ax Wi-Fi and the Internet of Things

Distributed Wi-Fi: How a Pod in Every Room™ Enables Connected Smart Homes | Wi-Fi Now Blog

My Comments

The Wi-Fi Now consortium wrote up a blog article where we are to expect more from a distributed Wi-Fi installation especially in the context of Internet Of Things and the smart home.

One of the key drivers for this issue will be the 802.11ax standard for Wi-Fi wireless networks. This is intended to be the successor to the current 802.11ac but also is about high throughput and the ability for multiple devices to work at once from the same network. As well, it is expected to yield high-efficiency operation with an experience similar using an Ethernet network that uses a switch like when you have devices connected to your home network’s router via its Ethernet LAN ports.

According to the article, 802.11ax with its increased throughput is pitched as being suitable for newer broadband-service technologies like fibre-to-the-premises, DOCSIS 3.1 HFC cable-modem and 5G mobile broadband. In the context of the distributed Wi-Fi network, 802.11ax will be positioned for use as a wireless backhaul between the access-points and the edge router that links to the Internet.

But the article places an expectation on these access-point pods being installed in every room due to the increased number of Wi-Fi-based network-enabled devices connected to the home network. There is also an expectation that these access points will support Bluetooth and/or Zigbee as well as Wi-Fi thus becoming a localised network bridge for smart-home and Internet-Of-Things devices based on these wireless technologies. But I would place in the same scope Z-Wave, DECT-ULE and other similar “Internet Of Things” wireless technologies.

Previously this kind of functionality was offered through separate network bridges that interlinked a Bluetooth, Zigbee or similar-technology device to your home network via Wi-Fi or Ethernet.

Such equipment was typically offered as an accessory for a smart-home device like a smart lock by the device’s manufacturer and you weren’t sure if this piece of equipment would work with other smart-home devices implementing the same wireless-link technology. Or it was offered as a “smart home hub” which worked with devices using a particular wireless technology and supporting certain function classes. But these hubs offered various smart-home controller functions including remote management as long as you were using particular apps or services.

This new approach could allow for an increased number of IoT devices in each room “talking” with the access-point pods and this data moves along the backhaul to the “edge” router for that “smart-home-as-a-service” setup. The article also sees it as allowing for an IoT device, especially one that is battery-powered, not to be part of a large Zigbee, Z-Wave or Bluetooth mesh thus leading to increased device reliability. I would also see it become relevant with setups that use technologies like DECT-ULE which use a “hub and spoke” topology.

For this concept to work properly, the network-bridge devices that interlink Zigbee or similar IoT wireless technologies to an IP-based network have to work independent of particular smart-home controller software. Then the smart-home controller software has to be able to work with any IoT-based device no matter which of these network bridges they are talking to as long as they are on the same logical network. This situation would be of concern with portable user-interface devices like remote controls that are likely to be taken around the premises.

Although this article is Wi-Fi focused, I would still see the wired network being important. For example, some house designers and builders are even wiring the homes they design with Ethernet whether as standard or as an option while the home is being built or renovated. As well, there is powerline networking based on either HomePlug AV500 or AV2 standards. Here, these wired-network technologies are still viable as a backhaul connection alternative especially if you are dealing with building materials and techniques like double-brick or sandstone construction, or foil-lined insulation that can slow down Wi-Fi wireless communications.

But could these wireless-network access-point “pods” be simply a dedicated device installed in each room? It could be feasible for a device that offers other functionality that benefits from the network to be an access point or one of these “pods” in its own right. For example, a network-capable printer or a consumer-electronics device like a home-theatre receiver could connect to an existing network’s backhaul but also be an access point in its own right.  In this context, a Smart TV installed in a lounge area further down the end of the house could become an access point or smart-home “pod” to cover that end area.

The idea has been proven in the form of the Amazon Echo Plus smart speaker which has a built-in network-bridge function for Zigbee smart-home devices. This is alongside the ability for it to be a controller for these devices in context with the Amazon Alexa ecosystem.

What is being put forward with the Wi-Fi NOW “Pod In Every Room” concept is the idea of a single logical network with a high-speed wireless data backbone and access-point devices serving all wireless networking applications for both regular data transfer and smart-home/IoT applications. As long as the approach is driven by common open standards without dependence on particular technology owned by one vendor, then there is the ability for this approach to multi-function Wi-Fi networking to work properly.

There has been a consistent range of affordable stereo amplifiers and receivers offered from the 1960s onwards that weren’t about high output levels or audiophile-level sound output quality. Here, they were about playing music from what was fed through them and yielding a decent-enough sound through a set of modestly-priced speakers.

Typically they were sold as something to have as the heart of your first multi-piece hi-fi system whether the system was with source equipment and speakers that you chose or as part of an affordable stereo-system package offered by the manufacturer. In some cases, the circuitry in some of these amplifiers has been integrated in one or more of the premium single-piece or three-piece stereo systems offered by that manufacturer.

Examples of these ranged from the Australian-built valve-based Cosmos stereo integrated amplifier that was sold through the Encel hi-fi store during the late 60s and early 70s, through affordably-priced Realistic stereo receivers sold by Tandy / Radio Shack through the 70s and 80s to the “micro” component systems that most of the Japanese hi-fi names launched through the early 1980s. This class of amplifier or receiver also represented the equipment that was offered at the lower end of a manufacturer’s product range.

In a lot of cases, these amplifiers and receivers were typically used as the heart of an elementary stereo system like one’s first hi-fi setup or a secondary hi-fi setup. Then the user’s needs would change towards using a better amplifier and these amplifiers ended up being used with a pair of cheap speakers to amplify sounds like game sound effects from a multimedia-capable computer.

But lately this practice has shown up again with the likes of Lepai, Topping and others who implement very small stereo integrated amplifiers that work effectively on a single chipset for both channels. Some of these amplifiers may have extra functionality like a phono stage, a digital-analogue converter, or a USB or Bluetooth interface as part of that same chipset or as another chipset that presents a line-level signal. But typically they are sold through different online stores as well as some specialist electronics outlets or hi-fi stores.

Here, these amplifiers are based on a TriPath “Class T” circuit design or a similar design which is based on the Class D switch-mode amplification approach that has allowed for highly-compact audio amplifiers. That is due to the ability to work with low current demands as well as not yielding excess waste heat.

Why are these amplifiers showing up again? Here, the low power output and the small circuit size has allowed for a very small footprint and one could easily connect them to low-powered speakers of which many are in circulation. One of the reasons this has This is brought about through affordable three-piece stereo systems that had given up the ghost and the speakers associated with these systems are seen as of value with a low-power amplifier.

There is also the fact that most, if not all, of the stereo speakers made before the 1970s were engineered for amplifiers which had low power outputs thanks to valve (tube) or early solid-state circuit designs that couldn’t achieve high output power. In this situation, these speakers including the floor-standing types were designed for maximum efficiency and an ideal tonal response while better amplifiers were designed for improved sound clarity.

A common application that these midget amplifiers are being put towards is to become an audio amplifier for your computer’s sound infrastructure. This is seen as being better than a lot of budget-priced active speakers pitched towards computer users which aren’t seen as offering high-quality sound.

Personally I would still value a stereo system based around these amplifiers as another direction towards a cost-effective music system where you don’t want memories of the gaudy 90s.

Articles

A QR code and a configuration app could be the way to get your Wi-FI network going or add a device to that network

From the horse’s mouth

Wi-Fi Alliance

Wi-Fi Easy Connect (Product Page)

My Comments

The Wi-Fi Alliance has released as part of its WPA3 update for wireless-networks security the Wi-Fi Easy Connect protocol for onboarding new devices to a Wi-Fi network segment. It will work with extant WPA2 network segments as well as newer WPA3-compliant segments which offers the chance for existing Wi-FI devices to support this technology. That is alongside the ability for device manufacturers and software / operating-system developers to meld it in to their existing products using new code.

It is intended for onboarding devices that have a limited user interface including onboarding Internet-capable “white goods” and “backbone” devices like fridges or heating / cooling equipment to your Wi-Fi network. It is currently being seen as an alternative to the push-button-based WPS configuration process for devices that don’t have much in the way of a user interface. For Android smartphone users, much of this process will be similar to using a printed QR code to “onboard” your smartphone to an existing Wi-Fi wireless network.

What is it about?

QR codes like what’s used on this poster will be part of configuring your Wi-Fi wireless network

The main goal with the Wi-Fi EasyConnect standard is to permit a device with a rich user interface like a laptop, tablet or smartphone running suitable configuration software to pass configuration information to other devices that have a limited user interface. This can be facilitated with an independent configuration app or function that is part of the device’s operating system. Or it could be to allow configuration through the access point using its Web-based management user interface or a management app supplied by the access point’s manufacturer.

In all cases, the software that looks after the configuration aspect is described as a configurator. Access points or client devices that want to be part of the network are described as “enrollee” devices.

Smartphones will become part of your Wi-Fi network’s setup or device-onboarding process

It can be feasible for one device to assume the role of a configurator or enrollee. An obvious example would be a computing device like a laptop, tablet or smartphone being able to come onboard an existing Wi-Fi network then you using that same computing device to bring another device like a network-capable fridge on board. Or you could bring a Smart TV or set-top box on-board to your Wi-Fi network using Wi-Fi Easy Connect but it then has the ability to be a “set-up point” for smartphones or tablets who want to join your Wi-FI network.

There are different ways of “associating” the enrollee device with the configurator device but it is primarily about making both devices know that they are trusted by each other.

The main method would be to use a QR code.that is on a sticker or card associated with the device or shown on the device’s display if this display is of the bitmapped graphical kind or can connect to a TV or monitor. Then the configuration device would scan this QR code if it is equipped with a camera.

Another option that is put forward is to use a text string written on a card or shown on a display and this would be used for configuration devices not equipped with a camera. This kind of situation may come in to its own if you are running a configuration program from a regular computer that isn’t equipped with a functioning Webcam.

.. as will laptops, Ultrabooks like this Dell XPS 13 and tablets

The Device Provisioning Protocol standard that is what the Wi-Fi EasyConnect feature is based on supports the use of NFC “touch-and-go” or Bluetooth Low Energy wireless link as another way to interlink a configuration device and an enrollee device during the setup phase. Both these technologies could work well with smartphone-centric applications, wireless speakers, connected building-management technology and the like. But these haven’t been placed as part of the certification testing that Wi-Fi Alliance has for the EasyConnect standard.

Once the initial information is exchanged between the devices, both devices will establish a separate secure Wi-Fi link with each other. Then the configuration software on one of the devices will use this link to pass through the parameters necessary to allow the enrollee device to connect with the extant Wi-Fi network. The whole configuration data-exchange is secured using asymmetrical public-key cryptography with the public key obtained during the initial setup process. Then that device hunts for, discovers and connects to the newly-programmed network.

There is the ability to use this same setup with an access point to set it up to work with an extant network or to create a new network. The latter situation would most likely be based around accepting a machine-generated ESSID and password or allowing the user to enter an ESSID and/or password. On the other hand, the previously-connected Wi-Fi networks list that an operating system maintains could be a data source for configuring a Wi-Fi device to a particular extant network using EasyConnect.

From the FAQs that I had read on the Wi-Fi Alliance Website, the Wi-Fi EasyConnect protocol allows for a single configuration program to configure multiple enrollee devices at once. Here, it is to facilitate situations where you are onboarding many IoT devices at once or are creating a new Wi-Fi network with new credentials.

But it doesn’t support the ability to onboard a single Wi-Fi client device to two Wi-Fi networks at once like your main network and a hotspot / guest network. Instead you have to repeat the Wi-Fi EasyConnect procedure including scanning the QR code for each network you want a device to associate with. This is so you can have greater control over what networks your devices are to associate with, but it can be of concern if you have a separate Wi-Fi network segment with distinct ESSID (network name) linking to the same logical network such as when dealing with a dual-band network with separate network names for each band.

What needs to be done

Personally, I would like to see Wi-Fi EasyConnect configuration functionality baked in to desktop and mobile operating systems including Apple’s operating systems rather than be separate programs. This avoids the need to find, download and install separate EasyConnect apps from your platform’s app store or loading a computer or smartphone with too many apps. But it could encourage other software developers to build improved Wi-Fi EasyConnect configuration apps that may, perhaps, suit particular user needs like asset control in the business-computing context.

I would also encourage the idea of maintaining WPS-PBC push-button pairing as an alternative method to Wi-Fi EasyConnect for onboarding Wi-Fi devices. This is more so for those devices that have a limited or no user interface and the goal is to quickly onboard a device without a rich user interface like a printer to a Wi-Fi router or access point.

Similarly, the use of NFC or Bluetooth as a legitimate certification option for onboarding Wi-Fi devices has to be encouraged and underscored through the life of this standard. Here, I would prefer that smartphones or tablets equipped with NFC and / or Bluetooth be tested to be compliant with the NFC and Bluetooth aspects of this standard.

There also has to be the ability with Wi-Fi EasyConnect to onboard a Wi-Fi network device with a limited user interface to an enterprise-grade Wi-Fi network that uses individual usernames and passwords. This is important for “Internet-Of-Things” devices that will increasingly be part of these networks.

Conclusion

Wi-Fi EasyConnect leads to another way of onboarding a Wi-Fi network device or access point using another device equipped with a rich user interface and can apply across all small-network setups.

Article

Instagram – now supporting IGTV and competing with YouTube

Instagram is launching its YouTube clone, IGTV, on Android in a few weeks | Android

IGTV in action

Authority

Meet Instagram’s YouTube Clone: IGTV | Gizmodo Australia

Here’s IGTV: Instagram’s vertical answer to YouTube | FastCompany

My Comments

There have been some recent situations where YouTube has become arrogant with how they treat end-users, content creators and advertisers thanks to their effective monopoly position for user-generated video content. One of these was a fight that Google and Amazon got into over voice-driven personal assistants and this led to Google removing YouTube support from Amazon’s Echo Show smart display. I even wrote that it is high time that YouTube faces competition in order to lift its game.

Initially Framasoft who is a French developers got working on an open-source video-distribution mechanism called “PeerTube” with a view to have it compete against YouTube.

But Instagram, owned by Facebook, have set up their own video-sharing platform called IGTV. This will be available as a separate iOS/Android mobile-platform app but also allow the clips to appear on your main Instagram user experience.

Initially this service will offer video in a vertical format for up to 1 hour long. The format is chosen to complement the fact that it is likely to be used on a smartphone or tablet that is handheld. The one-hour length will be offered to select content creators rather than to everyone while most of us will end up with 10 minutes. This may also appeal to the creation of “snackable” video content.

Currently Instagram offers video posting for 60 seconds on its main feed or 15 seconds in its Stories function. This is why I often see Stories pertaining to the same event having many videos daisy-chained.

The IGTV user experience will have you immediately begin watching video content from whoever you follow on Instagram. There will be playlist categories like “For You” (videos recommended for you), “Following” (videos from whom you follow), “Popular” (popular content) and “Continue Watching” (clips you are already working through).

The social-media aspect will allow you to like or comment on videos as well as sharing them to your friends using Instagram’s Direct mode. As well, each Instagram creator will have their own IGTV channel which will host the longer clips.

A question that can easily come up is whether Instagram will make it work for usage beyond mobile-platform viewing. This means support for horizontal aspect ratios, or viewing on other devices like snart-display devices of the Echo Home ilk, regular computers or Smart TV / set-top devices including games consoles.

It is an effort by Instagram and Facebook to compete for video viewers and creators but I see the limitation to the vertical format as being a limitation if the idea is to directly compete with YouTube. But Facebook and Instagram need to look at what YouTube isn’t offering and the platforms they have deserted in order to provide an edge over them.

I am reviewing the Brother QL-1110NWB wide-format network label printer which is the premium model for Brother’s QL-1100 series of wide-format label printers. It is seen as something that can work with applications where barcodes, graphics or extra details like weights and use-by dates are to be placed on a label like with packaging or commercial-kitchen food management.

There are two machines that are part of the Brother QL-1110 Series label printer lineup – the QL-1110 and the QL-1110NWB. The QL-1110 can only connect to the host computing device via USB and also supports USB-host connectivity for HID-class USB barcode readers. Android users can use USB OTG or USB Type-C adaptor cables to connect their devices to this printer and print using the Brother apps.

The QL-1110NWB supports the abovementioned USB connections but also supports network connectivity via Wi-Fi or Ethernet along with support for wireless connectivity via Bluetooth or direct (own access point) Wi-Fi connectivity,

Both of these machines run from AC power using an integrated power supply where you are not dealing with a “wall-wart” or “power brick” to supply power to them. Rather you are simply using the same kind of AC cord that you would use to power a portable radio and that leads towards a cable you can easily replace if the original one goes missing.

Connection to your computer or network

Brother QL-1110NWB network label printer connections – USB for direct to host connection, USB for barcode readers and Ethernet

The Brother QL-1110NWB can connect to your network via Ethernet or Wi-Fi wireless as well as being able to print from mobile devices using either Bluetooth or Wi-Fi Direct connections. But if you are setting up this machine for Wi-Fi-based network connectivity, you have to connect it to a regular computer running Windows via USB and run the supplied Printer Setting Tool to configure it. This doesn’t apply if you use WPS “push-to-connect” Wi-Fi setup or Ethernet connectivity on a small network.

I had found that the Printer Setting Tool was not surefire in its approach for Wi-Fi network setup and couldn’t even get it connected to my home network. But I could simply plug it in to the Ethernet connection which can be of use for setups where your premises is wired for Ethernet or you use a HomePlug powerline setup.

There is support for Web-based configuration but this only applies if you have it connected to your network.

It also supports Apple’s AirPrint driver-free printing standard so it can work with iOS and MacOS hosts without needing driver software.

Personally, I had found that the Brother QL-1110NWB label printer yielded a surefire connection when I used it with an Ethernet connection or a USB direct-to-host connection.

The label printers also have an integrated guillotine which makes it simpler and more elegant to manage the labels. This works under programmatic control or you can cut the labels manually through a push-button on the machine’s control panel.

Loading label stock in the label printer

Loading the label tape in the Brother QL-1110 Network Label Printer

The Brother QL-1110 Series label printers can take the same standard-width label stock as the rest of the QL series reel-feed label printers. But they can take label stock that is wider than normal thus allowing for the creation of larger labels including the possibility of printing out standard name-badge or address labels in landscape form.

Loading any of the Brother QL-1110 Series label printers is a relatively simple chore no matter whether you are using the wide label stock or the narrow label stock. These label printers use a clamshell design and you release the lid by operating two latches at the same time, which doesn’t require much pressure. Then you drop the label reel in, making sure it engages with the ridge on the right hand side of the compartment.

Then you thread the label paper through the machine taking care to make sure the paper is under a black sensor box on the right side of the compartment while it emerges through the front. Here, there is very little effort needed to make sure that the paper is threaded properly.

The Brother label printer uses microswitches that sense mouldings and holes on the reel along with other microswitches that sense the width of the reel to determine what kind of label tape is in the printer including whether it is a wide-format label tape. Here, you would have to be careful that the correct label tape is on the correct reel if you want this unit to work properly.

System-integration support

A systems integrator or yourself could upload label template designs created using P-Touch Editor and set up a “computer-free” label-creation arrangement for data read from barcodes. This can work with an HID-compliant barcode reader connected to the USB host port (both models) or linked via Bluetooth (QL-1110NWB only). That setup would then appeal to stock-control and similar applications.

There is also support for ESC/P printing codes so that these label printers can work with other third-party labelling or similar software that implements this kind of output control.

Supplied software

All the Brother label machines including these units support the P-Touch Editor software which works as a quick way to turn out labels. If you use a smartphone or mobile-platform tablet, the Brother iPrint&Label app works in the same vein for turning out labels from these devices.

If you use P-Touch Editor, you could set it that way by selecting “Vertical” in the Orientation setting under the Paper tab. This means that it will print out parallel to the printer. Here, I would recommend this if you want to exploit the wide-format label tape for turning out address labels or name badges.

Limitations and Points Of Improvement

Brother could make sure these label printers support any and all device classes to do with printing for POS, gaming and allied applications no matter the connection type as well as supporting other driver-free printing standards like Mopria Alliance and IPP Everywhere,

Similarly, Brother could look towards the use of other USB or Bluetooth input devices like keyboards or digital scales as a way to enter data for use with stored label templates. Here, it could work well with environments where you can’t use a smartphone or regular computer to enter data for a labelling environment.

I have always called on Brother to add a “measuring-tape” creation function to their P-Touch Editor software. Such a function would allow someone to use a label printer loaded with continuous-tape label stock to create a measuring tape that could be stuck to something like a worktop edge or door frame thus making that surface something to measure length or height with. This feature would appeal to laboratories, the medical profession, child care, education or a whole host of other professions who are always measuring things like people’s height for example.

As well, the P-Touch Address Book software could support country-specific addressing better by using nation-specific address layouts or omitting the ZIP Code barcode for non-USA addresses. It could be taken further through the implementation of machine-readable barcoding techniques that other countries may use to improve mail delivery.

Conclusion

The Brother QL-1100 Series label printers have become an example of legitimising wide-format thermal-based label printing for small businesses. This would be of importance for logistics and inventory-management applications where there is requirement for more detail on the label or to make heavy use of large barcodes.

But I would recommend the Brother QL-1110NWB specifically for those setups where you expect the printer to be located away from a regular computer.

Personal and business Internet users are showing interest in the concept of secure email. This is to assure that confidential emails only end up being viewed by the eyes of their intended recipients.

It is being driven by issues relating to confidential personal and business information being leaked to the Web along with a common personal worry regarding government surveillance in the age of terrorism and extremism. Along with this, activists, journalists and the like are wanting to rely on secure communications to pass through critical information in areas that are hostile to freedom of speech and the press. In some cases, people travelling through countries known to be hostile to freedom of speech like Russia and China have been encouraged to keep their data highly secure due to the espionage taking place in these countries.

More work needs to be done on secure email

There is a slow increasing prevalence of secure email platforms appearing on the Web. These platforms such as the Swiss-based ProtonMail and the secure iteration of Google’s GMail service are dependent on a Web-based user interface. Along with this, most of us are implementing instant-messaging platforms like WhatsApp, Viber and Telegram to send personally-confidential material to each other.

But they offer a series of features intended to assure personal privacy and corporate data security. They offer end-to-end encryption for the emails at rest (while they are on the servers pending delivery) and in transit (while they are being moved between servers). They also offer the ability for users to send seif-destructing emails that don’t stay in the recipient’s or the sender’s storage space after they are read unlike with conventional emails which stay in the user’s storage space after being sent or read. These self-destructing emails cannot even be forwarded to others or printed out (although it could be feasible to take a screenshot of that email and print or forward it). Some of these setups even have the ability to detect screenshots and let the sender know if the recipient took one of a confidential email. As well the metadata about the emails isn’t held on the servers.

But there are current limitations associated with these services. One of these is that the privacy features are only available to users who subscribe to the same email platform. This is because the common standards for secure email such as S/MIME, PGP and GnuPG only support basic key-based encryption and authentication abilities and the common email protocols like IMAP and POP3 don’t support email-handling control at the message level. As well, these services rely on a Webmail interface and require users to click on links sent as part of standard emails to view the secure messages if they aren’t part of that system.

There are certain features that need to be added to IMAP4 to allow for secure email handling. One of these is to permit message-level email control to permit self-destructing emails and to allow the sender to limit how the recipient can handle the messages. But the message-control features may run against legal-archive and similar requirements that will be asked of for business correspondence. In this situation, there may be the ability to indicate to senders or recipients if the emails are being archived as a matter of course and message-level email control can’t be assured.

Of course this may be about a newer feature-level email standard, preferably open-source or managed by many in computing academia and industry, to add this kind of secure email control.

Then there is the requirement to encourage the use of encrypted-email / authenticated-email standards like S/MIME or PGP within email endpoints, both Web-based and client-based. It will also include the ability for users to create asymmetrical key pairs and store their correspondents’ public keys in their contact manager software. There will also have to be the ability to support automated public-key discovery as a new contact is added, something currently feasible with encrypted messaging platforms that maintain their own contact directory.

Other questions that will come up in the course of building a secure email ecosystem is how the encryption keys are stored on the end-user’s system and whether an end-user needs to create new encryption keys when they change devices along with how to store them securely. This can be of concern with most computer users who typically maintain multiple devices, typically a smartphone along with a regular desktop or laptop computer and / or a tablet of the iPad ilk. Similarly there is the fact that one may not have the same computing device for the long haul, typically due to replacing one that has broken down or upgrading to a better-performing device.

There will also have to be the issue of security and portability thanks to issues like users temporarily using different computer devices such as friends’ computers, work / school computers or public computers. Here, it may be a question about where contact-specific encryption keys are held, whether on a server or on removable media along with how email sessions are handled on these temporary setups.

What will need to happen is for email platforms to support various secure-messaging features in a manner that can exist on a level playing field and without the need for correspondents to be on the same provider.