3 ms·

I stopped using emoji five years ago, because I disagree philosophically with the system. I think it's insane that displaying text should require software updat

by lapcat 3y ago

I stopped using emoji five years ago, because I disagree philosophically with the system. I think it's insane that displaying text should require software updates and fail to be backward compatible. Moreover, the demand for new emoji is insatiable, so the system is not practical or scalable. Unicode is not infinitely extensible. If I need to express myself without words, I stick to a few emoticons such as :-) ;-) and ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. That's all I really need.

tetris11 3y ago
What does `30C4` mean? (wit.)
tiltowait 3y ago
While I think there are many questionable emoji, and I find the constant emoji creep annoying, they do serve a few good functions. Used well, they can help break up text and draw your attention to specific parts. More importantly, however, they are much easier for screen readers to interpret, which has to help for accessibility.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Used well I doubt that emoji are ever used well. > they can help break up text and draw your attention to specific parts. I'm not sure what this means? > More importantly, however, they are much easier for screen readers to interpret, which has to help for accessibility. Well, I use emoticons sparingly, mainly at the end of messages to specific people who I know don't use a screen reader. Nothing is easier to interpret than words.
TheCoreh 3y ago
The demand is far from insatiable, the linked site shows the number of new emoji per year has decreased dramatically, and most of the new ones are encoded with ZWJ sequences that don't really require new unicode codepoints. Also the existing system is (mostly) backwards compatible. The main issue is that it's not forwards compatible, with the exception of said ZWJ sequences.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > The demand is far from insatiable, the linked site shows the number of new emoji per year has decreased dramatically, and most of the new ones are encoded with ZWJ sequences that don't really require new unicode codepoints. You're comparing demand with supply, which are not the same. In any case, the blog post is somewhat misleading, because the 2023 additions produce endless varieties of human "representation", and everyone wants to be represented in emoji. And everyone wants their food to be represented in emoji. Basically, everyone wants every object in the world to be represented in emoji. It's also misleading to say that most of the new ones don't really require new unicode codepoints, because the new sequences depend on the new codepoints, otherwise they would be preexisting emoji, not 2023 additions.
  - TheCoreh 3y ago
    > You're comparing demand with supply, which are not the same That's fair, I did get them mixed up. The _supply_ is constrained since they introduced more strict rules for adding new emoji, the demand is still much larger than that. > the 2023 additions produce endless varieties of human "representation", and everyone wants to be represented in emoji Most of the 2023 additions are about horizontally flipping actions that have directionality. Only the new family pairings could be considered representation-related, but IMO they're mostly about completing the set of possible combinations. > the new sequences depend on the new codepoints, otherwise they would be preexisting emoji, not 2023 additions It's complicated, because Unicode publishes both the codepoints and also a list of recommended interoperable ZWJ sequences. Newer additions have been to this list. Anyway, ultimately this is a matter of opinion, but arguing that unicode growing to encompass a lot of emoji as time goes by is not something scalable seems weird to me. One of the explicit goals of unicode was the ability to handle CJK ideograms. There are ~90,000 of those, and only ~3000 emoji. Even if they added 100 new emoji per year, which is far more than what they're doing, it would take about 900 years for the emoji set to match the size of the CJK ideograms set. This seems very scalable to me.
Ciotti 3y ago
Somewhat unrelated, but I've wondered if I should stop using emoji reactions. They're fun and useful in some contexts (e.g. thumbs up for "Understood"), but I also feel like they're so low-effort that they invite less thoughtful replies.

by lapcat 3y ago

tetris11 3y ago

What does `30C4` mean? (wit.)

tiltowait 3y ago

While I think there are many questionable emoji, and I find the constant emoji creep annoying, they do serve a few good functions. Used well, they can help break up text and draw your attention to specific parts. More importantly, however, they are much easier for screen readers to interpret, which has to help for accessibility.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lapcat 3y ago
> Used well I doubt that emoji are ever used well. > they can help break up text and draw your attention to specific parts. I'm not sure what this means? > More importantly, however, they are much easier for screen readers to interpret, which has to help for accessibility. Well, I use emoticons sparingly, mainly at the end of messages to specific people who I know don't use a screen reader. Nothing is easier to interpret than words.

TheCoreh 3y ago

The demand is far from insatiable, the linked site shows the number of new emoji per year has decreased dramatically, and most of the new ones are encoded with ZWJ sequences that don't really require new unicode codepoints. Also the existing system is (mostly) backwards compatible. The main issue is that it's not forwards compatible, with the exception of said ZWJ sequences.

lapcat 3y ago
> The demand is far from insatiable, the linked site shows the number of new emoji per year has decreased dramatically, and most of the new ones are encoded with ZWJ sequences that don't really require new unicode codepoints. You're comparing demand with supply, which are not the same. In any case, the blog post is somewhat misleading, because the 2023 additions produce endless varieties of human "representation", and everyone wants to be represented in emoji. And everyone wants their food to be represented in emoji. Basically, everyone wants every object in the world to be represented in emoji. It's also misleading to say that most of the new ones don't really require new unicode codepoints, because the new sequences depend on the new codepoints, otherwise they would be preexisting emoji, not 2023 additions.
- TheCoreh 3y ago
  > You're comparing demand with supply, which are not the same That's fair, I did get them mixed up. The _supply_ is constrained since they introduced more strict rules for adding new emoji, the demand is still much larger than that. > the 2023 additions produce endless varieties of human "representation", and everyone wants to be represented in emoji Most of the 2023 additions are about horizontally flipping actions that have directionality. Only the new family pairings could be considered representation-related, but IMO they're mostly about completing the set of possible combinations. > the new sequences depend on the new codepoints, otherwise they would be preexisting emoji, not 2023 additions It's complicated, because Unicode publishes both the codepoints and also a list of recommended interoperable ZWJ sequences. Newer additions have been to this list. Anyway, ultimately this is a matter of opinion, but arguing that unicode growing to encompass a lot of emoji as time goes by is not something scalable seems weird to me. One of the explicit goals of unicode was the ability to handle CJK ideograms. There are ~90,000 of those, and only ~3000 emoji. Even if they added 100 new emoji per year, which is far more than what they're doing, it would take about 900 years for the emoji set to match the size of the CJK ideograms set. This seems very scalable to me.

Ciotti 3y ago

Somewhat unrelated, but I've wondered if I should stop using emoji reactions. They're fun and useful in some contexts (e.g. thumbs up for "Understood"), but I also feel like they're so low-effort that they invite less thoughtful replies.