4 ms·

I get that sometimes some sign of emotion needs to be expressed in text, but there were ways of doing that before emojis existed. We had smileys like :-), ;-) a

I get that sometimes some sign of emotion needs to be expressed in text, but there were ways of doing that before emojis existed. We had smileys like :-), ;-) and :-(. And tags like <sarcasm></sarcasm>.

kylek 7y ago
I think I've finally made peace with emojis. However, automatic conversion from smilies to emojies still drives me nuts >:|
- frou_dh 7y ago
  This reminds me of a misconception a lot of people seem to have about Markdown. It's not "wrong" to present it to readers verbatim (i.e. not rendered to HTML), since Markdown is a codification of existing plaintext conventions, and was designed to look good verbatim. In other words, though it is often used for, it is not solely a vehicle for generating HTML.
- zeta0134 7y ago
  This is the main thing that drives me nuts. I'm fine with emoji, I'll even use them on purpose from time to time, but please let me decide when and how. There's nothing more infuriating than a computer replacing something I just typed with something its developer thought was better.
  - MrEldritch 7y ago
    I had to immediately turn off emoji conversion on Discord, because not only was it annoying, it was wrong - :) was invariably replaced with something that was very definitely the emoji equivalent of :D, and :D turned into what was unmistakably XD. These are very different!!
WilliamEdward 7y ago
I'm not sure if you're trying to say these crude emotes were good enough for expressing emotion and we didn't need emoji, but they're really not.
- Mordisquitos 7y ago
  Personally I believe that they are better than emoji precisely due to their crudeness. I can use ":-)" to punctuate a joke, lower the tension in a critical message, or react to a cute picture. In each of these contexts, the smiley gets translated to different reactions which are still the property of me and the person I'm communicating with, particularly if we know each other in person. By using the plain ":-)" I am expressing my own sense of humour, my own way of being tactful, or my own way of smiling at a cute cat precisely because the smiley is so abstract. Alternatively, when I see one of my friends using ":-)", I will picture their own expressions, their own faces. However, now with emojis, we are subject to the preferences of arbitrary designers and UX teams working for Apple, Facebook, Google, etc. and the latest trends in the small circle of trendsetters who have any influence. Each reaction has its own emoji or limited range of emojis, and the way of expressing playfulness, empathy, or reaction to cuteness has become commodified and standardised in sets of childish faces which have also become saturated by their overuse in marketing. I am expected to no longer express shock with ":-o", but with an overreacting Munch-scream-lookalike. Laughing now comes in pre-ordained grades, with anything less than "sideways with tears" seen as understated. In summary, I feel that by being expected to chose between a pre-ordained set of designed smileys we are oursourcing our emotional range.
  - WilliamEdward 7y ago
    You're not being expected to do anything, those who can use emojis effectively are free to do so, those who believe a smaller set of emotions work better are free to use them instead. Society is not being poisoned by the mere existence of emojis.
hrktb 7y ago
There was incredible amount of stuff you could do in text, like ･゜ﾟ･:.｡..｡.:･'(ﾟ▽ﾟ)'･:.｡. .｡.:･゜ﾟ･. or ε=ε=ε=ε=ε=ε=┌(;￣◇￣)┘ And people started to have auto pasted ascii art. That’s the point where emoji is a more concise, explicit and less cumbersome system. We should see emoji as standardization and putting a business tie on chaotic expressions to pass them down the line in a limited amount of bytes.

kylek 7y ago

I think I've finally made peace with emojis. However, automatic conversion from smilies to emojies still drives me nuts >:|

frou_dh 7y ago
This reminds me of a misconception a lot of people seem to have about Markdown. It's not "wrong" to present it to readers verbatim (i.e. not rendered to HTML), since Markdown is a codification of existing plaintext conventions, and was designed to look good verbatim. In other words, though it is often used for, it is not solely a vehicle for generating HTML.
zeta0134 7y ago
This is the main thing that drives me nuts. I'm fine with emoji, I'll even use them on purpose from time to time, but please let me decide when and how. There's nothing more infuriating than a computer replacing something I just typed with something its developer thought was better.
- MrEldritch 7y ago
  I had to immediately turn off emoji conversion on Discord, because not only was it annoying, it was wrong - :) was invariably replaced with something that was very definitely the emoji equivalent of :D, and :D turned into what was unmistakably XD. These are very different!!

WilliamEdward 7y ago

I'm not sure if you're trying to say these crude emotes were good enough for expressing emotion and we didn't need emoji, but they're really not.

Mordisquitos 7y ago
Personally I believe that they are better than emoji precisely due to their crudeness. I can use ":-)" to punctuate a joke, lower the tension in a critical message, or react to a cute picture. In each of these contexts, the smiley gets translated to different reactions which are still the property of me and the person I'm communicating with, particularly if we know each other in person. By using the plain ":-)" I am expressing my own sense of humour, my own way of being tactful, or my own way of smiling at a cute cat precisely because the smiley is so abstract. Alternatively, when I see one of my friends using ":-)", I will picture their own expressions, their own faces. However, now with emojis, we are subject to the preferences of arbitrary designers and UX teams working for Apple, Facebook, Google, etc. and the latest trends in the small circle of trendsetters who have any influence. Each reaction has its own emoji or limited range of emojis, and the way of expressing playfulness, empathy, or reaction to cuteness has become commodified and standardised in sets of childish faces which have also become saturated by their overuse in marketing. I am expected to no longer express shock with ":-o", but with an overreacting Munch-scream-lookalike. Laughing now comes in pre-ordained grades, with anything less than "sideways with tears" seen as understated. In summary, I feel that by being expected to chose between a pre-ordained set of designed smileys we are oursourcing our emotional range.
- WilliamEdward 7y ago
  You're not being expected to do anything, those who can use emojis effectively are free to do so, those who believe a smaller set of emotions work better are free to use them instead. Society is not being poisoned by the mere existence of emojis.

hrktb 7y ago

There was incredible amount of stuff you could do in text, like ･゜ﾟ･:.｡..｡.:･'(ﾟ▽ﾟ)'･:.｡. .｡.:･゜ﾟ･. or ε=ε=ε=ε=ε=ε=┌(;￣◇￣)┘ And people started to have auto pasted ascii art. That’s the point where emoji is a more concise, explicit and less cumbersome system. We should see emoji as standardization and putting a business tie on chaotic expressions to pass them down the line in a limited amount of bytes.