> Here's a test: how many of those icons can you correctly identify without reading the accompanying explanation? Well, funny thing --- the explanations on TFA

> Here's a test: how many of those icons can you correctly identify without reading the accompanying explanation? Well, funny thing --- the explanations on TFA are all in a language I can't read, so the words that "work just fine" mean less to me than a lot of those symbols do. But, the answer to your question is "35". > Good luck googling a scribble. Reverse image search? Google in fact provides just such a service. Realistically though, this is how you google a laundry symbol: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=laundry+symbols&t=ffsb&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=laundry+symbols&t=ffsb&ia=web You seem quite upset about this subject, but I'm not really seeing what's got you up in arms. These symbols have been used for ages now. Check any laundry garment you own. Having them included in Unicode (rather than forcing the use of some specialized font) isn't going to make them suddenly show up more places in physical print (and, conversely, keeping them out of Unicode will not make them go away). On the other hand, if you're encountering them digitally (as Unicode), you can just copy/paste the glyph to search for it. It's literally implemented as text at that point. > Words can be looked up in a dictionary Why on earth is is acceptable to pull a dictionary off the shelf and page through it (or load up dictionary software, etc.), but not okay to consult a laundry reference (digital or otherwise; if digital, almost certainly found through Google)?