The emojis are cool, the UI is nice - but I really like this[0] as a small-scale example of a project built within the Github ecosystem - deployment (Github Actions) and hosting (Github Pages).
looking more into this i guess it's called emoji kitchen by google and there's over 20,000 combinations, its crazy using this tool and seeing how specific they can get, they're not lazily copy pasted either, need a hedgehog wearing headphones? google got you covered i guess
Yeah, it's amazing that Google paid a bunch of designers to do this for over 30.000(!!) combinations. The feature isn't even advertised in the Google software keyboard, it's easy to miss.
Oh man, I was looking for high quality pngs of these combinations earlier. My hacky solution was to post to a private Twitter account from mobile, since Twitter serves these as pngs with alpha channel (and not as "stickers" or jpgs), copy them, and then remove the tweet. Never occured to me that these are just hosted on gstatic.com, insane.
She did create all of the emoji mashups for the first version of emoji kitchen by herself. I don't know if she had help for the current version, which features many more emoji combinations.
I wonder if we can fine tune a language model using this and then get infinite emoji mixes…
Could be a fun weekend project. If SVG of those icons exists somewhere it’s possible to find tune GPT with it too
Why a language model instead of stable diffusion? My brain went to "LoRA for Emojis + Img2Img existing emoji into new one" run in a massive loop, with some logic for "most useful combinations" put first.
Of all things to worry about when designing a website, the basically-zero percentage of people who voluntarily disable JS doesn't even make the list.
I view the noscript tag more along the lines of "Hey, your browser isn't working" than "Here's a sales pitch for my site for you and the 2 other people who disabled Javascript".
As time has gone on, more and more folks recommend disabling JavaScript as the default behavior and opting in on a per-site basis. This is easy to do with uBlock Origin. This isn’t a broken browser behavior but a conscious decision for the security and privacy of many users. Leaving one or two sentences isn’t much, and the “sales pitch” will help with SEO for web crawlers that don’t execute scripts.
Nope. You can see it in Brave search results. It’s also a massive barrier for a small start-up to index the web if it has to expend resourses to download and execute JavaScript. More generally, there’s also web scrapers (the good kind), TUI browsers, old hardware that shouldn’t be obsolesced just because of “browser target = current browsers only” (with this being more important for informational type websites rather than web applications which could just have a small blurb about what the site is/does tagged with its “Enable JS for X-App”).
IE7 was the oldest version I ever had to support--I understand it being a pain and there is always a cut-off point. This said, not JavaScript is often an option too for entire categories of the web ...and I say this as someone whose career has mostly been built on CSS & JavaScript. There’s a lot of old machines that should and could be able to read the sites we have today if wasn’t for that pesky scripting language being used where it didn’t need to (looking at you blogs and news sites that blocked your image loading behind JavaScript even though native loading="lazy" exists and would be a progressive enhancement).
You can build what you want. Xavier says this on his site:
My name is Xavier Salazar (he/him), and I love emoji. I currently work full-time at @slackhq and work remotely from Portland, OR I spend more time than my manager knows creating and perfecting the silliest little ideas for the internet.
I've been able to cover the costs of these projects by myself, but, at the end of the day, they are not free. Supporting me, even only for a couple dollars, goes a long way in making sure I can continue to create and support these projects.
You left out the noscript part. I’m not implying the project as a whole is minimal effort.
It would be nice to at least see a small explanation of what I as a user am missing out (one or two sentences), or the bare minimum is to at least name the application in the noscript instead of leaving the default text of create-react-app (or similar project generator). It could be as minimal as adding the name and repeating the meta description.
<noscript>
<h1>Emoji Kitchen requires enabling JavaScript to run</h1>
<p>Unique illustrations of combined emoji, cooked up in Google’s Emoji Kitchen, and comprehensively available on the web.</p>
</noscript>
No script is also a place for normal fallbacks where relevant in a multi-page app such as a static image instead of an interactive SVG. You can let crawlers and scrapers that don’t execute JavaScript know what content should be there. There’s still malice in many noscript elements embedding fishy tracking pixels.
If this application said “Emoji Kitchen let’s you combine existing emoji to create new hybrid emojis” I could decide if I think that’s silly, probably legit, and it’s worth the ‘risk’. It would also assist the aforementioned crawlers and scrapers.
Serious question, could you explain why you disable JS in 2023?
JS cannot access your files, your browser certainly protects you against cryptomining...
JS is not always eye candy, there are many things that cannot be done with forms alone. If you want a terrible web experience, feel free, but it's not the devs' job to write an exposé to explain why they had to use JS.
A lot of the web is full of sludge—blog spam, analytics, advertising, unnecessary motion. A lot of these files are large and take time to execute for marginal benefit (or negative benefit with tracking). Opting in on a per-site basis can save you the rare threat vector, but also prevent the sludge. When it’s clear the JavaScript provides value (or even good eyecandy), I do the two clicks to enable it and refresh; a blank page generically saying “Enable JavaScript” isn’t telling me anything and feels more like a warning to stay away. Exposé implies it needs to be anything beyond a line or two.
Not everyone wants to download and execute programs from the internet every time they visit a site.
Note: the ‘web’ is comprised of both web pages & applications where web applications obviously need JavaScript, but web pages are better served with JavaScript as an enhancement. In the post here, we have a web app, but there’s nothing that tells me what it is and with so many sites running these project generator defaults of “You need to enable JavaScript to run this app”, it’s impossible to tell if this is an trustworthy application, malicious, or another SPA that should have just been static content.
I opt in to JavaScript—not fully disabled. When there’s a compelling reason to enable it, I do, but if a site shows me nothing, it gives me nothing to work with. I run TUI browsers semi-regular though and they’ll never show me anything. Slap on that non-Google web crawlers aren’t executing JS & your site will get worse SEO too.
