3 ms·
> it's not a normal one I want to laugh but this is sadder than it is funny. Your definition of a “normal” family is literally heterosexual and white* (certai
by dpark 5y ago
> it's not a normal one
I want to laugh but this is sadder than it is funny.
Your definition of a “normal” family is literally heterosexual and white* (certainly not interracial). This is exactly why people want emoji to be more representative. They don’t agree that their families are “not normal”.
*Make no mistake, “yellow” is still a proxy for white skin. If the skin tone chosen were, say, dark orange, it would be exactly as realistic as yellow but white people would have a hard time identifying with the color and would be upset.
- collegeburner 5y agoMy definition of a normal family is straight because that's what the vast majority are... if you want to convey a concept easily use the common version. No issue with orange skin instead, or grey, or whatever else. Lots of advertisements recently use blue, green, pink, purple, whatever to purposely not be specific skin tones.
- dpark 5y agoI’m not sure what to say to you here. You’re quite literally saying that it should just please the majority. Not for any technical reason, either. Representing families of different sorts is entirely feasible technically. I could totally understand a “don’t bother supporting emoji at all” stance, because that would actually simplify, but that’s not what you’re saying. > Lots of advertisements recently use blue,… I can’t recall ever seeing this. When I see commercials, they’re generally real people, plus that one gecko. I haven’t seen this in print advertisements either but I don’t see a lot of print advertisements in general.
- collegeburner 5y agoLook up "globohomo art style", originally developed for Facebook as "Alegria". It's the same one with distorted people and all that. The point is they purposely make them representative of nobody to avoid this problem.