Re: Emoji end goal

[Doug Ewell]

gfb hjjhjh wrote:

> So, according to the emoji FAQ
> ,
> the end goal of emoji is to have no emoji? Or something like
> Softbank's escape sequence?
>
>> Q: What is the longer term plan for emoji?
>> A: The Unicode Consortium encourages the use of embedded graphics
>> (a.k.a. "stickers") as a longer-term solution, since they allow much
>> more freedom of expression. See Longer Term Solutions
>>  in UTR #51
>> .

There is a new emoji proposal [1] that cites the existence of "many apps
and sticker packs" with the proposed image as one rationale for encoding
it as a character. If ESC accepts this rationale, then the passage in
UTR #51 cited above will not only be incorrect, it will have been turned
on its ear.

[1] http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16280-breastfeeding-emoji.pdf 
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

Re: Emoji end goal

[Garth Wallace]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 1:39 AM, gfb hjjhjh  wrote:

> So, according to the emoji FAQ
> , the end goal of emoji is to
> have no emoji?  Or something like Softbank's escape sequence?
> >Q: What is the longer term plan for emoji?
> >A: The Unicode Consortium encourages the use of embedded graphics (a.k.a.
> “stickers”) as a longer-term solution, since they allow much more freedom
> of expression. See Longer Term Solutions
>  in UTR #51
> .
>
> btw is it just me or is the original Japanese carrier emoji, specifically
> those provided by DoCoMo, still not completely coded into Unicode? I
> counted the number of I-mode emoji listed on Japanese Wikipedia in the tron
> code section and there're apparently more emoji than those that are in
> emoji but I don't know which is missing.
>
Shibuya 109 was left out because AIUI, unlike the other landmarks, it's
private property. Are there any others?

Re: Emoji end goal

[gfb hjjhjh]

So, according to the emoji FAQ ,
the end goal of emoji is to have no emoji?  Or something like Softbank's
escape sequence?
>Q: What is the longer term plan for emoji?
>A: The Unicode Consortium encourages the use of embedded graphics (a.k.a.
“stickers”) as a longer-term solution, since they allow much more freedom
of expression. See Longer Term Solutions
 in UTR #51
.

btw is it just me or is the original Japanese carrier emoji, specifically
those provided by DoCoMo, still not completely coded into Unicode? I
counted the number of I-mode emoji listed on Japanese Wikipedia in the tron
code section and there're apparently more emoji than those that are in
emoji but I don't know which is missing.

2016-10-13 5:40 GMT+08:00 Oren Watson :

> I think ultimately there isn't an end goal. Unlike most of the other
> languages/scripts that unicode supports, emoji is currently in a state of
> rapid, decentralized, and asynchronous evolution and development, with
> various companies and communities contributing new ideas every year. It
> doesn't have an end goal because it isn't a project with a single entity or
> leader who defines its direction, as for example Esperanto was.
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 6:58 AM, zelpa  wrote:
>
>> So what exactly is the end goal for emoji? First we had the fitzpatrick
>> skin modifiers, now there's the proposal for gendered emoji sequences using
>> ZWJ. There was even the proposal for the hair colour modifier in TR 53. So
>> what is the true end goal? Will we one day be able to display our Fallout 4
>> character with a single emoji and 60 modifiers? And honestly, who is asking
>> for these additions? Does anybody WANT a hair colour modifier? Seems to me
>> like the consortium might just be pandering to a few silly requests (by
>> people who have no actual idea what unicode is) to get media attention.
>>
>
>

Re: Emoji end goal

[David Starner]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:48 AM Rebecca T <637...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreed. I think a good response to “that’d _double_ the codepoints, so we
> should just add a ligature” is “if it would be such a burden to implement
> that you don’t want to use space in the charts for what are, fundamentally,
> hundreds of *semantically different* ideographs, why are we dumping that
> burden onto vendors?”
>

Because the vendors want it. There's far more people who can and will
implement emoji completely than who support all Han ideographs or many
ancient scripts. If you don't want to support it because it's too big a
burden, then don't. If you don't have that option because your users are
demanding it, then Unicode is successfully providing the options the users
want, and if that feature is too much of a burden for you to support,
perhaps the problem is that you picked a problem you couldn't feasibly
solve.

I'd compare OSes. An operating system is probably about a man-year of work,
until you have all this problem with people wanting fancy font support and
graphical user interfaces and both IPv4 and IPv6 support and reading CDs
and audio support and all this ridiculous stuff. (A real OS supports either
punch cards or a keyboard for input, and outputs to a line printer.) Today,
pretty much only a major megacorp can make an OS from scratch, and even
Google used the Linux kernel and Java to simplify making Android. You could
blame Unicode for a small part of that, but Unicode isn't making you
implement Unicode in your OS; your users are making that demand.

Re: Emoji end goal

[Oren Watson]

I think ultimately there isn't an end goal. Unlike most of the other
languages/scripts that unicode supports, emoji is currently in a state of
rapid, decentralized, and asynchronous evolution and development, with
various companies and communities contributing new ideas every year. It
doesn't have an end goal because it isn't a project with a single entity or
leader who defines its direction, as for example Esperanto was.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 6:58 AM, zelpa  wrote:

> So what exactly is the end goal for emoji? First we had the fitzpatrick
> skin modifiers, now there's the proposal for gendered emoji sequences using
> ZWJ. There was even the proposal for the hair colour modifier in TR 53. So
> what is the true end goal? Will we one day be able to display our Fallout 4
> character with a single emoji and 60 modifiers? And honestly, who is asking
> for these additions? Does anybody WANT a hair colour modifier? Seems to me
> like the consortium might just be pandering to a few silly requests (by
> people who have no actual idea what unicode is) to get media attention.
>

Re: Emoji end goal

[Charlotte Buff]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 20:14:31 + David Starner > wrote:
> Because the vendors want it.

I wouldn't say so in general. Emoji fonts are far more work than regular
black-and-white vectors and I honestly believe that vendors with PNG-based
fonts like Apple and Google are slowly reaching the point where they can no
longer reasonably support any more emoji because their font sizes would
just blow up. I have noticed that recently vendors have become quite picky
on what emoji they want to support, going so far as blocking the addition
of new symbol characters to the UCS entirely, rather than just refusing to
give them emoji presentation once added. (Why they still thought the
hundreds of new gendered emoji were a good idea is another question.)

It's not like back in Unicode 7 when Apple and friends happily added half
of Webdings to their colorful emoji fonts for no apparent reason. I think
vendors really don't want to spend their time and effort on emoji anymore.
Things like hair colors are pretty much unfeasible for anyone besides
Microsoft, but as soon as there is some kind of semi-official Unicode
mechanism for that, user will *demand* you to follow through and implement
all possible variants.

Re: Emoji end goal

[Rebecca T]

Agreed. I think a good response to “that’d _double_ the codepoints, so we
should just add a ligature” is “if it would be such a burden to implement
that you don’t want to use space in the charts for what are, fundamentally,
hundreds of *semantically different* ideographs, why are we dumping that
burden onto vendors?”

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Philippe Verdy  wrote:

> I think that emojis at the minimum shoudl all be dispalyable isolately,
> without being required to form pseudo ligatures or to use colors. Skin
> colors can still be displayed with a patchwork-like rectangle after it and
> could still use monochromaic pattern fills. The number of combinations is
> exploding and most of them are infact not evident at all (or are highly
> culturally oriented).
>
> Amojis should remain simple, showing basic shapes, but I don't see why it
> could not differentiate a man or a woman, independantly of the ligatures
> that may be created with them (using a completely invented adhoc
> "orthography" that actually follows no standard at all and does not match
> cultural differences or the way we perceive the associations, that are more
> and more limiting their semantic interpretation in a too much restricted
> way.
>
> We certaionly don't have enough history is using emojis for creating and
> standardizing such pseudo-orthography. Emojis remain a new pseudo-language,
> but it reuses a typography based on visible symbols that have a long
> cutlural tradition with other cultural meanings and many unexpected
> semantics that don't work with the current associations created.
>
> So in fact I only support very few associations:
> - associating two "Flag" pseudo-letters (but a rendering should still be
> OK if the emojis just show the actual letters within a left or right part
> of a frame for a flag., without attempting to combine them into an actual
> colored flag (which will need to evolve with time).
> - associating skin color emojis after an emoji for a real human person or
> perosn face (no need this in fiction characters or for coloring other parts
> such as hands, fingers, eyes, hair, nose...)
>
> In all cases, colors should always remain an option. Please keep emojis
> simple and always usable in isolation, leaving their interpretation and
> associations only to reading humans according to their local culture and
> social interactions. The way they are used now is in fact abusing the
> initial goal of Unicode encoding which is to not encode according to
> specific languages or culture, and not break their basic semantic. byt
> mising them into something that is not clearly separable and does not carry
> the same amount of semantics.
>
> 2016-10-12 18:31 GMT+02:00 Doug Ewell :
>
>> Leonardo Boiko wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Gosh, even I wouldn't have gone that far.
>>
>> --
>> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
>>
>>
>

Re: Emoji end goal

[Oren Watson]

I am the maker of a similar project to unifont, albeit a work in progress
(see link below), and I certainly won't be supporting anything more than
gender-neutral, race-neutral emoji. This is due to technical
considerations: I don't plan on having colors in my font. The GNU unifont
project already has many emoji, but they also are not colored.

On the other hand, emoji are far from the most technically challenging
category of characters in unicode.

http://www.orenwatson.be/fontdemo.htm

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Rebecca T <637...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I think it’s definitely important to have representation and
> expression for people of all skin tones and genders even in things like
> emoji.
>
> I think we’re rapidly reaching a limit for variation sequences, and I’m
> personally not begging for hair color modifiers (although I would welcome
> them).
>
> I do worry a bit about the burden of supporting emoji on new systems.
> Drawing thousands (not that anyone can even count how many emoji there are)
> is a significant burden on developers creating new systems, and the
> alternative (tofu) isn’t appealing. There is Symbola (which leaves
> something to be desired, to say the least) and the graphical solutions,
> like Apple’s image-based or Microsoft’s layered-vector approach, have
> non-trivial implementations (stuff I wouldn’t want to take care of if I was
> creating a new system).
>
> I guess what I’m saying is: does anyone want to extent Unifont into the
> astral planes?
>
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, zelpa  wrote:
>
>> So what exactly is the end goal for emoji? First we had the fitzpatrick
>> skin modifiers, now there's the proposal for gendered emoji sequences using
>> ZWJ. There was even the proposal for the hair colour modifier in TR 53. So
>> what is the true end goal? Will we one day be able to display our Fallout 4
>> character with a single emoji and 60 modifiers? And honestly, who is asking
>> for these additions? Does anybody WANT a hair colour modifier? Seems to me
>> like the consortium might just be pandering to a few silly requests (by
>> people who have no actual idea what unicode is) to get media attention.
>>
>

Re: Emoji end goal

[Philippe Verdy]

I think that emojis at the minimum shoudl all be dispalyable isolately,
without being required to form pseudo ligatures or to use colors. Skin
colors can still be displayed with a patchwork-like rectangle after it and
could still use monochromaic pattern fills. The number of combinations is
exploding and most of them are infact not evident at all (or are highly
culturally oriented).

Amojis should remain simple, showing basic shapes, but I don't see why it
could not differentiate a man or a woman, independantly of the ligatures
that may be created with them (using a completely invented adhoc
"orthography" that actually follows no standard at all and does not match
cultural differences or the way we perceive the associations, that are more
and more limiting their semantic interpretation in a too much restricted
way.

We certaionly don't have enough history is using emojis for creating and
standardizing such pseudo-orthography. Emojis remain a new pseudo-language,
but it reuses a typography based on visible symbols that have a long
cutlural tradition with other cultural meanings and many unexpected
semantics that don't work with the current associations created.

So in fact I only support very few associations:
- associating two "Flag" pseudo-letters (but a rendering should still be OK
if the emojis just show the actual letters within a left or right part of a
frame for a flag., without attempting to combine them into an actual
colored flag (which will need to evolve with time).
- associating skin color emojis after an emoji for a real human person or
perosn face (no need this in fiction characters or for coloring other parts
such as hands, fingers, eyes, hair, nose...)

In all cases, colors should always remain an option. Please keep emojis
simple and always usable in isolation, leaving their interpretation and
associations only to reading humans according to their local culture and
social interactions. The way they are used now is in fact abusing the
initial goal of Unicode encoding which is to not encode according to
specific languages or culture, and not break their basic semantic. byt
mising them into something that is not clearly separable and does not carry
the same amount of semantics.

2016-10-12 18:31 GMT+02:00 Doug Ewell :

> Leonardo Boiko wrote:
>
> 
>
> Gosh, even I wouldn't have gone that far.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>

Re: Emoji end goal

[Rebecca T]

Sure, and kanji have romanisations but that doesn’t make the latin alphabet
language neutral. And yes, emoji were supposed to be language neutral but
all the implementers made them default to male. I think you have an
*argument* with skin-tone neutrality but I think you’d be hard-pressed to
find any POC who think the Fitzpatrick modifiers were a mistake.

Also, the “what if my skin was blue” argument is a red herring — nobody has
blue skin, so it’s a moot point.
However, if you do find yourself drinking silver, I suggest U+1F922
🤢 Nauseated Face.

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, zelpa  wrote:

> >"all ethnicities deserve equal representation in media" or "all
> combinations of genders and professions should be considered equally"
> I wasn't aware that bald yellow people were a race, sorry. If anything,
> adding the skintone modifiers has made me feel LESS included, what if I
> don't fit in to one of the 5 categories? What if I drank too much colloidal
> silver and have blue skin? Sure would be nice to be able to express an
> emotion without also expressing my gender and race. What a wacky world
> would that be. And as for the professions? As I've said on the mailing list
> in the past, the current proposal makes it IMPOSSIBLE to display certain
> professions as gender-neutral. Is that really a step forward? Can we not
> just have gender-neutral, race-neutral emoji? Is that really too much to
> ask?
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Leonardo Boiko 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, the end goal of the Unicode Consortium is media attention by way of
>> virtue signaling. For every online article about emoji modifiers, each
>> individual member of the Consortium earns a fifty-Euro bonus from our
>> masters, the global feminist cultural-Marxist Jewish conspiracy, for our
>> support in propagating political correctness and ultimately implementing
>> ONU's One World Government. In fact, the end goal for emoji (as originally
>> planned by Gramsci and Adorno in UAX #1922) is to be the mandatory
>> Newspeak-style writing system of the NWO, so as to brainwash citizens away
>> from scientific truths like race realism or the sociobiology of gender. As
>> soon as WOMAN+ ZWJ+President Hillary finish assassinating the last
>> remaining ASCII reactionaries, full emoji deployment will be in order, and
>> we'll indoctrinate every child to internalize standard Communist dogma such
>> as "all ethnicities deserve equal representation in media" or "all
>> combinations of genders and professions should be considered equally
>> valid". The lead experiments at Tumblr and Instagram were very successful,
>> proving that emoji have great potential as tools of indoctrination.
>>
>> 2016/10/12 10:02 "zelpa" :
>>
>>> So what exactly is the end goal for emoji? First we had the fitzpatrick
>>> skin modifiers, now there's the proposal for gendered emoji sequences using
>>> ZWJ. There was even the proposal for the hair colour modifier in TR 53. So
>>> what is the true end goal? Will we one day be able to display our Fallout 4
>>> character with a single emoji and 60 modifiers? And honestly, who is asking
>>> for these additions? Does anybody WANT a hair colour modifier? Seems to me
>>> like the consortium might just be pandering to a few silly requests (by
>>> people who have no actual idea what unicode is) to get media attention.
>>>
>>
>

Re: Emoji end goal

[Doug Ewell]

Leonardo Boiko wrote:



Gosh, even I wouldn't have gone that far. 
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

Re: Emoji end goal

[Rebecca T]

Well, I think it’s definitely important to have representation and
expression for people of all skin tones and genders even in things like
emoji.

I think we’re rapidly reaching a limit for variation sequences, and I’m
personally not begging for hair color modifiers (although I would welcome
them).

I do worry a bit about the burden of supporting emoji on new systems.
Drawing thousands (not that anyone can even count how many emoji there are)
is a significant burden on developers creating new systems, and the
alternative (tofu) isn’t appealing. There is Symbola (which leaves
something to be desired, to say the least) and the graphical solutions,
like Apple’s image-based or Microsoft’s layered-vector approach, have
non-trivial implementations (stuff I wouldn’t want to take care of if I was
creating a new system).

I guess what I’m saying is: does anyone want to extent Unifont into the
astral planes?

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, zelpa  wrote:

> So what exactly is the end goal for emoji? First we had the fitzpatrick
> skin modifiers, now there's the proposal for gendered emoji sequences using
> ZWJ. There was even the proposal for the hair colour modifier in TR 53. So
> what is the true end goal? Will we one day be able to display our Fallout 4
> character with a single emoji and 60 modifiers? And honestly, who is asking
> for these additions? Does anybody WANT a hair colour modifier? Seems to me
> like the consortium might just be pandering to a few silly requests (by
> people who have no actual idea what unicode is) to get media attention.
>

Re: Emoji end goal

[zelpa]

>"all ethnicities deserve equal representation in media" or "all
combinations of genders and professions should be considered equally"
I wasn't aware that bald yellow people were a race, sorry. If anything,
adding the skintone modifiers has made me feel LESS included, what if I
don't fit in to one of the 5 categories? What if I drank too much colloidal
silver and have blue skin? Sure would be nice to be able to express an
emotion without also expressing my gender and race. What a wacky world
would that be. And as for the professions? As I've said on the mailing list
in the past, the current proposal makes it IMPOSSIBLE to display certain
professions as gender-neutral. Is that really a step forward? Can we not
just have gender-neutral, race-neutral emoji? Is that really too much to
ask?


On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Leonardo Boiko  wrote:

> Yes, the end goal of the Unicode Consortium is media attention by way of
> virtue signaling. For every online article about emoji modifiers, each
> individual member of the Consortium earns a fifty-Euro bonus from our
> masters, the global feminist cultural-Marxist Jewish conspiracy, for our
> support in propagating political correctness and ultimately implementing
> ONU's One World Government. In fact, the end goal for emoji (as originally
> planned by Gramsci and Adorno in UAX #1922) is to be the mandatory
> Newspeak-style writing system of the NWO, so as to brainwash citizens away
> from scientific truths like race realism or the sociobiology of gender. As
> soon as WOMAN+ ZWJ+President Hillary finish assassinating the last
> remaining ASCII reactionaries, full emoji deployment will be in order, and
> we'll indoctrinate every child to internalize standard Communist dogma such
> as "all ethnicities deserve equal representation in media" or "all
> combinations of genders and professions should be considered equally
> valid". The lead experiments at Tumblr and Instagram were very successful,
> proving that emoji have great potential as tools of indoctrination.
>
> 2016/10/12 10:02 "zelpa" :
>
>> So what exactly is the end goal for emoji? First we had the fitzpatrick
>> skin modifiers, now there's the proposal for gendered emoji sequences using
>> ZWJ. There was even the proposal for the hair colour modifier in TR 53. So
>> what is the true end goal? Will we one day be able to display our Fallout 4
>> character with a single emoji and 60 modifiers? And honestly, who is asking
>> for these additions? Does anybody WANT a hair colour modifier? Seems to me
>> like the consortium might just be pandering to a few silly requests (by
>> people who have no actual idea what unicode is) to get media attention.
>>
>

Re: Emoji end goal

[Leonardo Boiko]

Yes, the end goal of the Unicode Consortium is media attention by way of
virtue signaling. For every online article about emoji modifiers, each
individual member of the Consortium earns a fifty-Euro bonus from our
masters, the global feminist cultural-Marxist Jewish conspiracy, for our
support in propagating political correctness and ultimately implementing
ONU's One World Government. In fact, the end goal for emoji (as originally
planned by Gramsci and Adorno in UAX #1922) is to be the mandatory
Newspeak-style writing system of the NWO, so as to brainwash citizens away
from scientific truths like race realism or the sociobiology of gender. As
soon as WOMAN+ ZWJ+President Hillary finish assassinating the last
remaining ASCII reactionaries, full emoji deployment will be in order, and
we'll indoctrinate every child to internalize standard Communist dogma such
as "all ethnicities deserve equal representation in media" or "all
combinations of genders and professions should be considered equally
valid". The lead experiments at Tumblr and Instagram were very successful,
proving that emoji have great potential as tools of indoctrination.

2016/10/12 10:02 "zelpa" :

> So what exactly is the end goal for emoji? First we had the fitzpatrick
> skin modifiers, now there's the proposal for gendered emoji sequences using
> ZWJ. There was even the proposal for the hair colour modifier in TR 53. So
> what is the true end goal? Will we one day be able to display our Fallout 4
> character with a single emoji and 60 modifiers? And honestly, who is asking
> for these additions? Does anybody WANT a hair colour modifier? Seems to me
> like the consortium might just be pandering to a few silly requests (by
> people who have no actual idea what unicode is) to get media attention.
>

Emoji end goal

[zelpa]

So what exactly is the end goal for emoji? First we had the fitzpatrick
skin modifiers, now there's the proposal for gendered emoji sequences using
ZWJ. There was even the proposal for the hair colour modifier in TR 53. So
what is the true end goal? Will we one day be able to display our Fallout 4
character with a single emoji and 60 modifiers? And honestly, who is asking
for these additions? Does anybody WANT a hair colour modifier? Seems to me
like the consortium might just be pandering to a few silly requests (by
people who have no actual idea what unicode is) to get media attention.