3 ms·

Its about being a standard. The good thing about Emojis is they are part of Unicode and are now almost baked into everything natively. Vendors have slightly dif

Its about being a standard. The good thing about Emojis is they are part of Unicode and are now almost baked into everything natively. Vendors have slightly different art, but the same meaning is always conveyed. And there's a whole lot of them. It's like a international standardized pictogram language, and no surprise it became popular in Asia first. Just think about how you can already use Emojis to do some basic communication with someone on the street of Beijing or Tokyo.

madeofpalk 9y ago
> but the same meaning is always conveyed Debatable. https://medium.com/matter/lost-in-emoji-translation-apple-vs-android-648fdd57ca25 https://medium.com/matter/lost-in-emoji-translation-apple-vs... Old article, and Android is/has ditched the blobs, but still highlights the importance of the art in conveying the same meaning.
- andrepd 9y ago
  That article misses the gravest one in my opinion: toy water gun vs actual gun https://emojipedia.org/pistol/ https://emojipedia.org/pistol/
  - Fej 9y ago
    That has to be the most idiotic emoji implementation - clearly not what the Unicode Consortium intended, and borderline against the specification.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      > clearly not what the Unicode Consortium intended, and borderline against the specification. While I think the change was a bit silly so this this hyperbolic and unfounded statement. The specification merely states "pistol" and uses a silhouette of a gun as it's reference. Even if you argue that the reference is clearly an automatic pistol (reasonable) the specification in fact specifically states "The shapes of the reference glyphs used in these code charts are not prescriptive. Considerable variation is to be expected in actual fonts." So, as much as I disagree with the change (the intent was... well meaning if, I think, misguided) it is not only not "against the specification" - it's directly in line with guidance of the specification.
  - madeofpalk 9y ago
    The problem with this specific one is Apple changing the glyph, and thus the meaning, with an update. Messages I previously sent were completely rewritten in a software update because Apple changed the glyph so drastically.
dperfect 9y ago
There might be a loose standard, but if you've ever tried to reliably convert text with emojis to a static image or print media (with proper licensing), you've probably experienced how much of a pain they can be. The fact that new emojis keep getting added to the standard means that at any point in time, your implementation (font/code/assets) might be out out-of-date and sprinkled with tofu. It's a constant battle — one that even Apple can't seem to keep up with on their own platforms (I'm looking at you, Messages app in MacOS Sierra).

madeofpalk 9y ago

> but the same meaning is always conveyed Debatable. https://medium.com/matter/lost-in-emoji-translation-apple-vs-android-648fdd57ca25 https://medium.com/matter/lost-in-emoji-translation-apple-vs... Old article, and Android is/has ditched the blobs, but still highlights the importance of the art in conveying the same meaning.

andrepd 9y ago
That article misses the gravest one in my opinion: toy water gun vs actual gun https://emojipedia.org/pistol/ https://emojipedia.org/pistol/
- Fej 9y ago
  That has to be the most idiotic emoji implementation - clearly not what the Unicode Consortium intended, and borderline against the specification.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    > clearly not what the Unicode Consortium intended, and borderline against the specification. While I think the change was a bit silly so this this hyperbolic and unfounded statement. The specification merely states "pistol" and uses a silhouette of a gun as it's reference. Even if you argue that the reference is clearly an automatic pistol (reasonable) the specification in fact specifically states "The shapes of the reference glyphs used in these code charts are not prescriptive. Considerable variation is to be expected in actual fonts." So, as much as I disagree with the change (the intent was... well meaning if, I think, misguided) it is not only not "against the specification" - it's directly in line with guidance of the specification.
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  The problem with this specific one is Apple changing the glyph, and thus the meaning, with an update. Messages I previously sent were completely rewritten in a software update because Apple changed the glyph so drastically.

dperfect 9y ago

There might be a loose standard, but if you've ever tried to reliably convert text with emojis to a static image or print media (with proper licensing), you've probably experienced how much of a pain they can be. The fact that new emojis keep getting added to the standard means that at any point in time, your implementation (font/code/assets) might be out out-of-date and sprinkled with tofu. It's a constant battle — one that even Apple can't seem to keep up with on their own platforms (I'm looking at you, Messages app in MacOS Sierra).