Investigating the Potential for Miscommunication Using Emoji https://grouplens.org/blog/investigating-the-potential-for-m...
It's intersting because there is a huge difference between the simple emoji faces accross devices. The grinning face example is really good because the Apple and Twitter version doesn't look happy at all, like a different expression under the same emoji
Historically, this issue stems from it being an original DoCoMo emoji. https://d2jv9003bew7ag.cloudfront.net/uploads/Original-Emoji...
My understanding is that when Apple was implementing these, read the bottom left graphic here as rectangular by choice. At 12x12, it's pretty ambiguous. Then Unicode got into the mix, called it a 'grinning face', and newer sets went in that direction.
I wish those emojis carried a very small caption. Also because I can't recognize what half of them are supposed to mean.
I sent "good night" with a bed emoji.
The other party saw a hospital building with a red cross.
And not only they! I saw it, as well!
The picture changed. In the composing field it was one and in the message area another.
If you're using Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/emoji-to-engl...
I agree whole-heartedly but then I'm an old fart.
I'm tired of seeing that stupid, stupid cartoon face. I wince when I see it. It pains me. It's like getting stabbed in the gut for offering chewing gum to someone. I don't like to tell jokes anymore.
I want to reply:
Please stop laughing so hard.
The joke I made was not that funny.
1. Thumbs Up (like, but often mere acknowledgement)
2. Heart (love, but often off-topic)
3. Wow (horrified, shocked or amazed, but which?)
4. Cry (sad, but why?)
5. Mad (angry, but at who?)
Because they've accepted ambiguity as fact when communicating with individual icons, they also lack a sense of volume. They've been trained to understand that CAPS LOCK is bad, but it will be years before emoji fatigue sets in. For this reason, I've mostly withdrawn from interacting with many people.
How is there no [ ZZZ ] talk balloon floating above, to indicate the obvious snoring?
On most devices it renders out to a look of disappointment. But on androids, their little dude looks to have a smug grin, which is never what you want to convey with :-/
Some people try really hard to show a toothy smile and they end up looking like the Apple or Facebook smiling emoji.
Imho, on a more 3D blob (2.5D or isometric) Google's version would be best. But as they are, Samsung offers the most convincingly, emotionally happy one, but it does not really fit the 'grinning' theme. So the HTC's example is probably best, especially in the usually small format, though it isn't the most artful one.
I think what happens is that they tend to hold their wings up, which gives the impression that they are pointing forward even when they are not.
Then again, I'm not an entomologist.
A too-cold butterfly that wants to warm up in the sun would want to increase exposed surface area. A warm-enough butterfly would fold up those wings, as normal. A too-hot butterfly would slowly flap, preferably in the shade.
I still can't internalize how butterflies can actually fly with those wings. It just seems like there would have to be so much twisting, curling, and flapping that they would either just flop around wildly in the air or rip their own wings off. But that's probably because I'm mentally trying to scale it up to Arthur-sized flight. Aerodynamics are a lot different when your whole craft is only a few grams.
With the huge possibility that I'm wrong, I think a butterfly about to take off would want to extend its wingtips as vertical as possible, and lift off with a strong down-stroke, then twist parallel to the air stream and re-extend before twisting back to flap down again.
Defensive is a strong possibility for butterflies with false eye spots on their wings, or zebra-stripe-like, outline-breaking herd camouflage.
Not you too, Camelia! Liz, what have you done to our mascot!
At least the one in The Very Hungry Caterpillar is so weirdly shaped that it's just weird, not dead.
I have had this 'bug' on multiple different websites. Forbes in particular is a nice example, they take 5mins to save your preferences and then it says they "are working on it. You can change your preferences." (Not direct quote).
> I don’t know what this is?
I think statements followed by a question mark is a distinctly Tumblr-y convention. It's generally used to express confusion. Kinda like raising one's pitch at the end of a statement to indicate uncertainty.
A question not expecting an answer is pretty close to correct particularly in a modern context.
Perhaps you feel people should never say things they are uncertain about? Or do you mean that people should not express that uncertainty?
Yeah, unfortunately that is hard to express pictorially as there's no universal human gesture or face for it (unlike most facial expressions). I have seen the clapping hands  use to say thanks, and alternatively the right-facing fist (as in fist-bump) - but the meaning of the latter can be lost entirely depending on demography of recipient, or interpreted as being aggressive (I'll punch you), and the former might be understood to be applause.
1. HN does not render Emojis - https://emojipedia.org/clapping-hands-sign/
2. https://emojipedia.org/right-facing-fist/ sometimes combined with the left-facing fist to make a fist-bump.
Does each device send a code, interpreted by the recipient device/platform with its own library of images, or do devices send pictures, received as is? Or does it depend on the platform? Is there a standard?
But. If you visit a website that has its own emoji, such as Twitter or Facebook, then it’ll replace those codepoints with inline images.
Emoji are represented both as characters and as markup, and there's overlap.
(Markup is the correct approach, IMO, and I really need to finish my blog post on that...)
Sometimes you gotta break a few eggs to make change …
IMHO the 'correct' solution, if you want to remove the handgun picture is to remove it from the emoji keyboard (and possibly refuse to render it) and introduce a new water pistol emoji.
It's an er, interesting position that the emoji standards committee (if that's the term) finds itself in. Do they have the right to determine discourse? There have been small riots (if that's the right term) about skin colors, genders, family composition, jobs, and now about weapons as well. They have the job (which I don't envy) to design an international language that is able to express a lot of concepts and emotions on the one hand, but on the other not to offend if possible.
And then there's the implementers, who have to add an extra layer to it - like the Apple crash bug which was caused by a certain flag emoji being available in one country but not the other.
Why is their job to avoid offending anyone? Why a pistol emoji showing a real life pistol is offensive on itself? It's not like I can't offend anyone using only the ASCII character set.
Emoji are a vital part of the way we communicate online so some see them as a prime way to push their agenda.
For emojis it seems every big company makes its own thing? instead of using libraries made by professional design shops / foundries like for fonts; that's confusing.
It just happens that fonts are mostly handeled by operating systems providers while emoticons are mostly handeled by chat system providers. That has historical reasons since beautifully rendered emoticons were used as a selling point long before emoticons were added to fonts in the West (Japanese code pages did have emojis, so things might have developed different if chat was dominated by Japanese companies instead of American ones). Meanwhile providing custom fonts wasn't feasible for websites for most of the internets existance, so that hasn't caught on yet as something web-based companies like twitter do.
If you use a more complicated script such as Chinese/Japanese/Korean ideograms, or more rare script like Cherokee, you not only have fewer choices, maybe a font or three. In those cases those fonts are often more closely tied to the system manufacturer than what in the latin script world we'd think of as a foundry or type designer. Some scripts wish they could afford designers/type-foundries to explore playful variants like or similar to the vast variety we see of latin characters. (I've seen kickstarters/indiegogo campaigns for exactly that.)
Then there are Unicode fallback fonts. A font "Times New Roman" doesn't (and likely couldn't) include _all_ of Unicode. It's a big sea of characters. Not just because it would take a lot of work for every font to cover all of Unicode, but because for most fonts it doesn't even make sense. What's the difference between say "Arial" and "Helvetica" outside of latin/latinate letters? How would you apply that to CJK ideograms or Cherokee letters? So for a lot of Unicode codepoints, the systems all fall back to common system fonts (a dedicated Cherokee font, a rotation of CJK fonts based on all sorts of things like region and some rare hints from the font being falled back from).
It's possible for classic foundry fonts like "Times New Roman" to ship with full emoji sets, and to have outside font choices to shift emojis. The one non-technical question remains: what would that even mean for "Times New Roman" emoji versus "Arial" emoji, "Arial" versus "Helvetica"? It's possible we might figure out a use for something like a "serif" versus "non-serif" emoji and the fallback can send that as a hint of sort like some other scripts have, but never need anywhere near as wide a variety of emoji.
It's also possible systems could provide options of fallback emoji font based on user preference, if there were enough emoji font options. For now it's easiest for the system manufacturers to just bundle one and only one of their choice, such as they do with a script like Cherokee.
There are a few technical obstacles to allowing that. The big technical issue is how systems handle color rendering. Microsoft is currently to my knowledge the only system handling emoji entirely in the font rendering stack, with color data embedded as extensions into otherwise ordinary OpenType font files.  (Microsoft's emoji fallback font actually has a traditional foundry-style name, it is "Segoe UI Emoji", and can even be seen in font lists, not that it is that useful on its own as a latin font choice, and Character Map hasn't been updated to render color fonts nor show Unicode emoji ranges.) Many other systems have custom renderers that intercept Unicode emoji and replace with raster bitmaps of one form or another, rather than relying on "true" font fallback techniques.
Does anybody know why?
For example, in Chromium I only see squares here:
But in Firefox I see ants.
(Bonus nitpick: Also, those are not characters, they're glyphs. The term "character" is so indefinable that the Unicode standard, to my knowledge, never uses the term.)
> The Unicode Standard draws a distinction between characters and glyphs. Characters are the abstract representations of the smallest components of written language that have semantic value. They represent primarily, but not exclusively, the letters, punctuation, and other signs that constitute natural language text and technical notation. The letters used in natural language text are grouped into scripts—sets of letters that are used together in writing languages. Letters in different scripts, even when they correspond either semantically or graphically, are represented in Unicode by distinct characters. This is true even in those instances where they correspond in semantics, pronunciation, or appearance.
> Characters are represented by code points that reside only in a memory representation, as strings in memory, on disk, or in data transmission. The Unicode Standard deals only with character codes.
> Glyphs represent the shapes that characters can have when they are rendered or displayed. In contrast to characters, glyphs appear on the screen or paper as particular representations of one or more characters. A repertoire of glyphs makes up a font. Glyph shape and methods of identifying and selecting glyphs are the responsibility of individual font vendors and of appropriate standards and are not part of the Unicode Standard.
> Various relationships may exist between char acter and glyph: a single glyph may correspond to a single character or to a number of characters, or multiple glyphs may result from a single character.
You've either set the wrong font, or the default one is not installed or linked properly, while on Firefox you've set a custom font.
Looking more closely, the most disturbing thing I see in these is the Google ant, which has somehow placed its left front leg over its left middle leg. It feels like a layer mixup; that position is completely impossible in normal motion.
I agree with the author on the LG ant - it looks wrong but still cute.
Too bad, sounded like a fun article.
I really hope some group of lawyers will start smashing the corporations with GDPR lawsuits with no remorse. I intensely hope there's money to be made out of this.
Maybe I should write an article on that, it's a perfect case study.
- the less privacy-friendly option is a big shiny button, while privacy controls are behind a small greyed link
- hiding the privacy options behind many interactions, basically making it as frustrating as possible to find the opt-out, I always find that amusing to read "We value your privacy" while I spend so much time looking for actual control over my privacy
- all of the "partners" checked by default (non GDPR compliant), with no easy way to deselect all ("select all" is, however, usually an option)
- bait and switch: when you go to partners' settings, checking the checkbox is actually requesting to opt-out, but to know that you need to read a long, grey paragraph with a small font size at the very end of the list
- punishing the user by making it unnecessarily slow to opt-out, most of them are legitimate from my finding, but I've noticed a few fake loadings (zero requests in the network tab), it may simply be due to poor engineering though (Hanlon's razor)
- redirecting the user from the original content after he opted-out, also feels like an intended punishment to me (but same as before: can be explained by poor engineering)
In any case, i took the trouble from opt-ing out and archiving the page : https://archive.is/2hADS
(Also disable 3rd party cookies in your browser settings while you're at it)
Imagine that, by clicking "I accept", I agree to get my browser's fingerprint stored in their servers to identify me. For the sake of GDPR compliance, I can go back to their site at any time, revoke this consent, and they would actually forget me (crazy, I know).
The problem is: since I have already agreed to the tracking, I won't see the "Accept" button anymore. Sure, I can go there and revoke my consent, but why would I? I don't even remember going there the first time.
Agreeing to something I don't _really_ agree to is a bad idea overall. A better alternative, I think, is to start accessing cached versions of websites.
Cookies are but one method of tracking, so even if cookies are deleted the site may still successfully and thus lawfully track you through other means.
"Dr Brown Bear displays signs of 'burnout.' His disregard for confidentiality, parental consent, record keeping, and his self prescribing indicate that the burden of demand from his patient population is affecting his health. He is no longer able to offer the level of service his patients have come to expect."