3 ms·
> Apple’s change is ill considered because it breaks the conceptual compatibility that Unicode is meant to establish. Anyone with an iPhone ought to be able to
by kennywinker 10y ago
> Apple’s change is ill considered because it breaks the conceptual compatibility that Unicode is meant to establish. Anyone with an iPhone ought to be able to send a message to someone with another company’s products — like Google or Microsoft or Samsung — and have what’s delivered communicate the same idea as what’s sent.
If Apple is guilty of causing miscommunications, then so are the other platform vendors:
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/your-favourite-emoji-dont-mean-what-you-think-they-mean--xklmeNGvvZZ http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/your-favourite-emoj...
So far, variance from the unicode standard is pretty widespread. The gun is not the first, probably not the worst.
- jrock08 10y agoMore good examples of variance in the artistic style and implied meaning are the various non-people emojis. In general, google has "cuter", "friendlier", and more anthropomorphized versions. http://emojipedia.org/octopus/ http://emojipedia.org/octopus/ http://emojipedia.org/ghost/ http://emojipedia.org/ghost/ http://emojipedia.org/monkey/ http://emojipedia.org/monkey/
- dogma1138 10y agoIt is widespread but it's not variance in message and interpretation. One can argue about who has the "cutest" monkey or the "spookiest" ghost but they are still a monkey and a ghost. A water pistol is not the same thing as a "realistic" gun. What do you think would happen if some one sends a text from an iphone saying "war in the school parking lot bring your [gunemoji]" while being used to the water pistol emoji and some one gets the same message with a realistic gun emoji? Having artistic variance is fine, but there are guidelines, the emoji still has to be universally recognizable and not misleading a water pistol is not a gun.