23 votes

Emoji don't mean what they used to - The pictorial language has moved away from ideography and toward illustration

40 comments

  1. [33]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [15]
      unknown user
      Link Parent
      This is the biggeat problem with emoji indeed: it is in Unicode, and it does not belong there. Unicode need not include emoji or other signs that it includes. Just include writing systems, that is...

      This is the biggeat problem with emoji indeed: it is in Unicode, and it does not belong there. Unicode need not include emoji or other signs that it includes. Just include writing systems, that is enough.

      Personally I don't use emoji excepts in IMs sometimes. But people do use it almost everywhere. So a good standard is needed. But Unicode is not it.

      10 votes
      1. [14]
        bun
        Link Parent
        Unicode is meant to be universal. Just because you don't use signs or emojis doesn't mean that there aren't benefits from having a standardized text system that computers across systems can use...

        Unicode need not include emoji or other signs that it includes. Just include writing systems, that is enough.

        Unicode is meant to be universal. Just because you don't use signs or emojis doesn't mean that there aren't benefits from having a standardized text system that computers across systems can use alike.

        How would you even decide what "signs" should and should not be included? Copyright sign? Greek symbols? Japanese text? Better to have it all, and then have the users themselves use what they need.

        6 votes
        1. [13]
          unknown user
          Link Parent
          Easily: all sorts of letters (alphabets, abugidas, abjads, logograms etc), numbers, punctuation, control chars, combining diacritics, and the minimal set of symbols that include scientific...

          How would you even decide what "signs" should and should not be included?

          Easily: all sorts of letters (alphabets, abugidas, abjads, logograms etc), numbers, punctuation, control chars, combining diacritics, and the minimal set of symbols that include scientific symbols, copyright etc, common shorthands, currencies, etc., and finally whitespace. All those things that constitute text.

          Emoji are pictures. Table borders, traffic signs, zodiac signs, icons like coffee cups and paperclips are so too. They clutter unicode, and it'd be better if they were governed by a separate, specific standard.

          5 votes
          1. [12]
            bun
            Link Parent
            That's way more than just "writing systems"! You're even including shorthands which honestly is what a lot of people use emojis for. A "text" is just a symbol or set of symbols that can be read....

            all sorts of letters (alphabets, abugidas, abjads, logograms etc), numbers, punctuation, control chars, combining diacritics, and the minimal set of symbols that include scientific symbols, copyright etc, common shorthands, currencies, etc., and finally whitespace.

            That's way more than just "writing systems"! You're even including shorthands which honestly is what a lot of people use emojis for.

            All those things that constitute text.

            A "text" is just a symbol or set of symbols that can be read. An emoji is a form of text. Wether I write "apple" or 🍎, we both know what those convey.

            Emoji are pictures. Table borders, traffic signs, zodiac signs, icons like coffee cups and paperclips are so too.

            All symbols and text are pictures. Wy can we not use the zodiac signs for the zodiacs? Why is it ok to use an abstract symbol to describe something, like an omega for resistance, but not ok to use an apple for an apple?

            6 votes
            1. [7]
              Crespyl
              Link Parent
              This touches on my biggest beef with emoji, which is that the above is not always the case. The string "apple" is represented unambiguously by Unicode as a sequence of English letters. The "🍎"...

              Wether I write "apple" or 🍎, we both know what those convey

              This touches on my biggest beef with emoji, which is that the above is not always the case.

              The string "apple" is represented unambiguously by Unicode as a sequence of English letters. The "🍎" image is not part of any actual human language, is represented with a lossy description of a "miscellaneous symbol or pictograph", and every vendor or font may have a slightly different idea of what a "Red Apple" actually looks like.

              This is mostly works out fine for some symbols (it's hard to be confused about an apple), but others like "grinning face", "face with mask", and "crying with laughter" often have subtle differences in that can result in miscommunication (and have, in my experience). On top of that we even have vendors breaking with the standard for moral/social reasons as with the "(squirt)gun" emoji.

              When something really is part of a writing system, a well understood glyph that appears in written documents, it makes perfect sense to use Unicode to standardize its digital representation (I'd say zodiac symbols fit in just fine under this umbrella).

              However, when what we really want is to be able to embed any small picture into a text stream, it seems to me that we would be better off using purpose built tools for image representation rather than trying to settle on some fixed finite set of nouns that every vendor will render differently, and will always leave someone feeling excluded or unsupported.

              If we must keep inline image support in Unicode, and I had my druthers, we'd replace the entire emoji section with control characters for painting vector graphics.

              9 votes
              1. [5]
                bun
                Link Parent
                Except it isn't. Maybe the sound is clear when we write, but how do we know if we are speaking about apple the fruit, or apple the company? We don't, so when I proclaim I don't like apple very...

                The string "apple" is represented unambiguously by Unicode as a sequence of English letters.

                Except it isn't. Maybe the sound is clear when we write, but how do we know if we are speaking about apple the fruit, or apple the company? We don't, so when I proclaim I don't like apple very much, you wouldn't know which.

                The "🍎" image is not part of any actual human language, is represented with a lossy description of a "miscellaneous symbol or pictograph", and every vendor or font may have a slightly different idea of what a "Red Apple" actually looks like.

                You could make the same argument for writing styles or different type. If someone writes something in cursive I can't decipher it no matter what. Your individual characters can be as defined as you would, it would still be complete gibberish to me. Even some typed fonts can be unclear on what letter is what.

                Stylistic choices are a problem no matter what.

                This is mostly works out fine for some symbols (it's hard to be confused about an apple), but others like "grinning face", "face with mask", and "crying with laughter" often have subtle differences in that can result in miscommunication (and have, in my experience).

                I could say the same about text. It's hard to outright convey with text what I am meaning. If I say that I am crying right now, what would that mean? Am I happy? Am I sad? Emotional? Just cutting onions for dinner? Uncertainty in language comes in all forms.

                On top of that we even have vendors breaking with the standard for moral/social reasons as with the "(squirt)gun" emoji.

                That I agree is a big issue. But that's a case of vendors just not actually following the unicode. If for instance on android every "b" is written as a "d", we'd blame the vendor, not the letters.

                When something really is part of a writing system, a well understood glyph that appears in written documents, it makes perfect sense to use Unicode to standardize its digital representation (I'd say zodiac symbols fit in just fine under this umbrella).

                Then why is it not fine to use a smiley if I am happy to convey that? Is it ok if its ":)"? I would say everyone gets that nowadays. Even those unable to read the alphabet we are using right now would be able to read an emoji, so i'd say emoji have the potential to be better understood than just letters.

                5 votes
                1. [4]
                  Crespyl
                  Link Parent
                  These all essentially boil down to individual problems with literacy and communication, not with text representation. I must insist that the byte sequence "apple" certainly is unambiguous in its...

                  but how do we know if we are speaking about apple the fruit, or apple the company?

                  If someone writes something in cursive I can't decipher it no matter what

                  It's hard to outright convey with text what I am meaning.

                  These all essentially boil down to individual problems with literacy and communication, not with text representation.

                  I must insist that the byte sequence "apple" certainly is unambiguous in its Unicode representation. It is a sequence of glyphs, one "a", two "p"s, an "l" and an "e", there is no other way for a (spec compliant) computer to interpret it. How a human reader understands it as a reader of the English language and in the context of the sentence or phrase that it may be embedded in is not a problem that Unicode exists to solve.

                  But that's a case of vendors just not actually following the unicode

                  If a vendor confuses the letter "b" for "d", it's obviously wrong to any reader of the language. If a vendor draws a happy sprightly green turtle instead of a bored slow grey turtle, it's not clear who's misinterpreted "TURTLE/1f422".

                  Then why is it not fine to use a smiley if I am happy to convey that? Is it ok if its ":)"?

                  It is fine! And yes, absolutely! I may have been unclear that I really have no issue with embedding inline images or repurposing glyphs to make smileys; human communication is complex, subtle, highly contextual, and will always find some means of using every feature of the environment its in. I love it for all those reasons.

                  I just feel strongly that the approach we've taken so far with the ballooning set of emoji in Unicode is error-prone, ambiguous (from a technology and specification standpoint), and unsustainable.

                  6 votes
                  1. [3]
                    bun
                    Link Parent
                    I will have to dispute that. I would consider myself literate, as hopefully proven by ability to both read what you wrote and respond to it. Bad handwriting, or difficulty parsing is not exactly...

                    These all essentially boil down to individual problems with literacy and communication, not with text representation.

                    I will have to dispute that. I would consider myself literate, as hopefully proven by ability to both read what you wrote and respond to it. Bad handwriting, or difficulty parsing is not exactly out of the ordinary.

                    I must insist that the byte sequence "apple" certainly is unambiguous in its Unicode representation. It is a sequence of glyphs, one "a", two "p"s, an "l" and an "e", there is no other way for a (spec compliant) computer to interpret it. How a human reader understands it as a reader of the English language and in the context of the sentence or phrase that it may be embedded in is not a problem that Unicode exists to solve.

                    On this I will also protest. If I am not paying attention, an "i" and an "l" are fairly similar. Yet Albert Heijn (often nicknamed Appie) is not the same as Apple. Glyphs can be misinterpreted, just like images.

                    If a vendor confuses the letter "b" for "d", it's obviously wrong to any reader of the language. If a vendor draws a happy sprightly green turtle instead of a bored slow grey turtle, it's not clear who's misinterpreted "TURTLE/1f422".

                    On that I completely agree. It should be a turtle. Nothing extra. The moment you deviate from the standard, the standard is pointless.

                    1 vote
                    1. [2]
                      Crespyl
                      (edited )
                      Link Parent
                      I think we have a disconnect here, in that my issues are with the Unicode standard and the digital representation of text and images, and you seem to be arguing from the perspective of human...

                      I think we have a disconnect here, in that my issues are with the Unicode standard and the digital representation of text and images, and you seem to be arguing from the perspective of human interpretation and ambiguous rendering.

                      "O" and "0" may in some fonts be ambiguous to human readers, certainly, but U+004F and U+0030 are completely and consistently distinct, as is their interpretation as the Latin capital letter "O" and the numeral for zero, across all the various digital systems that process them. They may in some cases render similarly, but they have clearly defined semantics in the context of the writing systems they originated from.

                      U+1f422 does not share this property, as it only means "picture of a turtle", does not carry any semantics from an existing writing system, and if you and I (let alone a dozen hardware and software vendors) were both to sit down and draw a spec-compliant image of a turtle, we'd have very different resulting images that carried all sorts of different connotations to a viewer beyond just "turtle".

                      On the other hand, if we both received a series of detailed instructions like "take a number 2 pencil and 1-inch square piece of white paper, draw a circle of this size at this place, etc." we'd both end up with exactly the same image. Different viewers might interpret our cloned images differently (because people are different), but at least the representation (the list of drawing instructions) and the rendering are completely consistent and unambiguous.

                      Further, the list-of-instructions approach is infinitely extendable and I can make my own instructions to draw whatever I want, without needing to go to every vendor on earth and say "add HALF EATEN CUPCAKE to your dictionary, and you figure out how to draw it" (and risk marginalizing everyone who only deals with 3/4-eaten cupcakes).

                      Edit: I feel I should also be quite clear that I don't mean to accuse you of illiteracy, and I apologize if you felt that was the case; only that the matter of reading cursive vs print, or interpreting the context of some particular statement are higher-level concerns that aren't especially relevant to Unicode or emoji.

                      5 votes
                      1. bun
                        Link Parent
                        Thats actually a good point. Ideally I'd just see one turtle and everyone uses it. Sorta like it already is with special symbols. No worries, I figured I just misinterpreted it. Found it amusing...

                        U+1f422 does not share this property, as it only means "picture of a turtle", does not carry any semantics from an existing writing system, and if you and I (let alone a dozen hardware and software vendors) were both to sit down and draw a spec-compliant image of a turtle, we'd have very different resulting images that carried all sorts of different connotations to a viewer beyond just "turtle".

                        Thats actually a good point. Ideally I'd just see one turtle and everyone uses it. Sorta like it already is with special symbols.

                        I feel I should also be quite clear that I don't mean to accuse you of illiteracy, and I apologize if you felt that was the case; only that the matter of reading cursive vs print, or interpreting the context of some particular statement are higher-level concerns that aren't especially relevant to Unicode or emoji.

                        No worries, I figured I just misinterpreted it. Found it amusing tbh. :)

                        1 vote
              2. DigitalCrazy
                Link Parent
                This is one of my biggest gripes with emoji. Samsung even had to update their emoji because of how different it looked in comparison to other platforms, causing miscommunication.

                This is mostly works out fine for some symbols (it's hard to be confused about an apple), but others like "grinning face", "face with mask", and "crying with laughter" often have subtle differences in that can result in miscommunication (and have, in my experience). On top of that we even have vendors breaking with the standard for moral/social reasons as with the "(squirt)gun" emoji.

                This is one of my biggest gripes with emoji. Samsung even had to update their emoji because of how different it looked in comparison to other platforms, causing miscommunication.

                4 votes
            2. [4]
              unknown user
              Link Parent
              Emoji changes quite often. Letters and punctuation and shorthand symbols like & and % and $ and Β£ don't. We don't have these sort of symbols pop up every few months. We could have Unicode as a...

              Emoji changes quite often. Letters and punctuation and shorthand symbols like & and % and $ and Β£ don't. We don't have these sort of symbols pop up every few months.

              We could have Unicode as a reliable, sliw paced standard, and another one for more pictorial characters like emoji that uses a better method to define, store, access these characters, like a standard :emoji: notation that allows an abundance of synonyms and tags etc for pictograms that can be translated and easier to find.

              1. [3]
                bun
                Link Parent
                If emojis change, that's not the fault of emoji but those who change them. Like for instance when the gun became a water gun or zap gun. If we suddenly had one vendor change a letter into a...

                If emojis change, that's not the fault of emoji but those who change them. Like for instance when the gun became a water gun or zap gun. If we suddenly had one vendor change a letter into a different one, we wouldn't blame the alphabet, we'd blame whomever refuses to follow standard.

                2 votes
                1. [2]
                  unknown user
                  Link Parent
                  That is incorrect and irrelevant. New emoji go thru Unicode standardisation, they don't appear out of blue b/c a vendor wished that thay be. Letters being modified by vendors is extremely unlikely...

                  That is incorrect and irrelevant. New emoji go thru Unicode standardisation, they don't appear out of blue b/c a vendor wished that thay be. Letters being modified by vendors is extremely unlikely and that emoji change often is good for emoji.

                  I think of emoji more like words than letters. Words change and get coined all the time. Whereas we are using letters from millennia ago almost everywhere in the world.

                  1. bun
                    Link Parent
                    How is that incorrect and irrelevant? If I'm not mistaken, once they're standardized they don't change within the unicode. So if you change what's depicted without changing the code, that's not on...

                    How is that incorrect and irrelevant? If I'm not mistaken, once they're standardized they don't change within the unicode. So if you change what's depicted without changing the code, that's not on the emoji or standard itself. That's on people treating standards as if they're interpretive.

                    2 votes
    2. [2]
      ThreeMachines
      Link Parent
      I have a lot of criticisms to make about how the Unicode consortium has gone about expanding emoji, but I don't think the decision to expand emoji was fundamentally misguided. Emoji were adopted...

      I have a lot of criticisms to make about how the Unicode consortium has gone about expanding emoji, but I don't think the decision to expand emoji was fundamentally misguided.

      Emoji were adopted into Unicode in order to unify multiple conflicting, proprietary implementations. I think there's every reason to believe that if emoji expansion hadn't happened, proprietary extensions to emoji would have proliferated in chat clients as competitive differentiators. (We can see evidence of this in the way that some aftermarket emoji features, like colon-delimited character codes and jumbomoji, have become ubiquitous.) By expanding emoji before an arms race broke out, Unicode was able to prevent a certain amount of character set fragmentation.

      7 votes
      1. NaraVara
        Link Parent
        This. If Unicode hadn't standardized emoji sets I guarantee you chat-clients, like Facebook, would have started pushing people towards paid-for stickers or custom emoji fonts instead. This would...

        This. If Unicode hadn't standardized emoji sets I guarantee you chat-clients, like Facebook, would have started pushing people towards paid-for stickers or custom emoji fonts instead. This would have been a nightmare for interoperability and just been one more way in which monolithinc social-media companies commoditize and profit off online culture while adding no value.

        3 votes
    3. [14]
      Nephrited
      Link Parent
      βŒπŸ—£οΈβ“ πŸ‡§πŸ‡·β“πŸ‡¨πŸ‡Ώβ“πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺβ“πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅β“ πŸ€·β™€οΈ πŸŒŽπŸ˜„ πŸ‘
      • Exemplary

      βŒπŸ—£οΈβ“

      πŸ‡§πŸ‡·β“πŸ‡¨πŸ‡Ώβ“πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺβ“πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅β“

      πŸ€·β€β™€οΈ

      πŸŒŽπŸ˜„

      πŸ‘

      8 votes
      1. [8]
        Algernon_Asimov
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        You speak in riddles. Half those symbols don't render on my desktop browser. Even now that I've switched to my phone and can see all the pictures... this is just gibberish to me. This is the best...

        You speak in riddles. Half those symbols don't render on my desktop browser. Even now that I've switched to my phone and can see all the pictures... this is just gibberish to me.

        This is the best I can work out:

        "Not talk?"
        "Brazil?" "unknown country?" "Germany?" "Japan?"
        "I don't know women."
        "World happy."
        "Good."

        The context and layout seems to indicate that this is intended to be a message, but I can't decipher it.

        I can't help but be reminded of this quote by Lynne Truss (she of 'Eats, Shoots & Leaves' fame):

        "Ah, but does it matter, so long as we get the gist?" they ask, as if saying something original and profound. "Is conveying a gist the highest aim of language?" I ask (sometimes a bit emotionally). "Correct me if I'm wrong, but cavemen pointing and grunting got the bloody gist!"

        This supposed message of yours is about as coherent to me as pointing and grunting would be.

        ...which undermines any claim people might make that images are universally understood.

        3 votes
        1. [7]
          Nephrited
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Urgh. Even your phone isn't displaying them all correctly (I'm curious how old it is / how far behind on updates you are). What I assume you're seeing as a shrug and a female symbol is actually...

          Urgh.

          Even your phone isn't displaying them all correctly (I'm curious how old it is / how far behind on updates you are). What I assume you're seeing as a shrug and a female symbol is actually the woman shrugging emoji. Even Windows displays all of them to an understandable degree (although it substitutes the flags for the country codes).

          Windows.

          And if you can't work it out with that filled in bit of information you're being deliberately obtuse.

          1 vote
          1. [6]
            Algernon_Asimov
            Link Parent
            It's 3 years old, but I've updated it every time I get told it needs updating. And the browser is Chrome, which automatically updates itself. I'm seeing two symbols: someone shrugging, and the...

            (I'm curious how old it is / how far behind on updates you are).

            It's 3 years old, but I've updated it every time I get told it needs updating. And the browser is Chrome, which automatically updates itself.

            What I assume you're seeing as a shrug and a female symbol is actually the woman shrugging emoji.

            I'm seeing two symbols: someone shrugging, and the "woman" symbol (which is also the symbol for the planet Venus).

            And if you can't work it out with that filled in bit of information you're being deliberately obtuse.

            I gather that the gist of your message is that emoji are good at letting non-English speakers communicate, and they're inclusive of women. But, as I said earlier, it is only the gist.

            1 vote
            1. [5]
              Nephrited
              Link Parent
              Nope, that's the whole of the message meaning. You understood it! Job done.

              Nope, that's the whole of the message meaning. You understood it!

              Job done.

              2 votes
              1. [4]
                Algernon_Asimov
                Link Parent
                Wow. Really? You used 16 emoji for that message, and my translation used only 13 words ("emoji are good at letting non-English speakers communicate, and they're inclusive of women"). And it's a...

                Wow. Really?

                You used 16 emoji for that message, and my translation used only 13 words ("emoji are good at letting non-English speakers communicate, and they're inclusive of women").

                And it's a lot harder to interpret your version than mine.

                1 vote
                1. bun
                  Link Parent
                  Assuming you can read english. For non-english readers it would not surprise me if Nephriteds message makes more sense.

                  And it's a lot harder to interpret your version than mine.

                  Assuming you can read english. For non-english readers it would not surprise me if Nephriteds message makes more sense.

                  3 votes
                2. [2]
                  Nephrited
                  Link Parent
                  Mian, ihaega andwae.

                  Mian, ihaega andwae.

                  1 vote
                  1. Algernon_Asimov
                    Link Parent
                    Even Google Translate doesn't recognise that!

                    Even Google Translate doesn't recognise that!

                    1 vote
      2. [6]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. [4]
          Gaywallet
          Link Parent
          πŸ™… πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡¬πŸ‡§β›” πŸ“•πŸˆΆβ‰οΈ πŸ€·πŸ”«

          πŸ™…

          πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡¬πŸ‡§β›”

          πŸ“•πŸˆΆβ‰οΈ

          πŸ€·πŸ”«

          1 vote
          1. [4]
            Comment deleted by author
            Link Parent
            1. [3]
              Gaywallet
              Link Parent
              πŸ…, πŸ…

              πŸ…, πŸ…

              3 votes
              1. [3]
                Comment deleted by author
                Link Parent
                1. [2]
                  Gaywallet
                  Link Parent
                  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tomato,_tomato
                  1. [2]
                    Comment deleted by author
                    Link Parent
                    1. Gaywallet
                      Link Parent
                      Yes I was, and your response was that you could use equivalency to allow other character input to display the same images at which point it feels like we're just reinventing emoji through another...

                      Yes I was, and your response was that you could use equivalency to allow other character input to display the same images at which point it feels like we're just reinventing emoji through another means. Tomato, tomato.

    4. openatheclose
      Link Parent
      Historically, hasn't Unicode always had picture symbols? Things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscellaneous_Symbols have been around for years, I thought, even beyond being compatible with...

      Historically, hasn't Unicode always had picture symbols? Things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscellaneous_Symbols have been around for years, I thought, even beyond being compatible with the historical Japanese setup.

      1 vote
  2. [7]
    Gaywallet
    Link
    This guy is seriously trying to gatekeep emoji ⁉️ How dare humans build upon and expand their creativity, because it's not "clear" what emoji mean anymore? They are a way to enhance communication,...

    This guy is seriously trying to gatekeep emoji ⁉️

    How dare humans build upon and expand their creativity, because it's not "clear" what emoji mean anymore? They are a way to enhance communication, period. Even back when there were hardly any emoji some people enhanced their communication with illustrations such as "lets go get some drinks 🍺" and other times people enhanced their communication with ideography such as "Sounds like a plan πŸ˜‰" . Before emoji people used simple ascii smiley faces like ;).

    Communication is difficult and people use whatever tools are available to them to improve it. Even in person where body gestures, facial expression, vocal variety, visual aides, and a plethora of other tools are available, the message is often misinterpreted because people are diverse and use tools in different ways.

    The idea that we've somehow crossed a line or barrier that has separated the usage from one kind to another is just as absurd as the premise that it even matters how emoji are used in the first place. It's like arguing that a hammer should never be used to break things, because it was designed to hammer nails. Β―\_(ツ)_/Β―

    5 votes
    1. [6]
      Deimos
      Link Parent
      This comment seems only vaguely related to the article to me. He's discussing how emoji have gradually become so specific that they've lost a lot of their value as generic pictographs. If anything...

      This comment seems only vaguely related to the article to me. He's discussing how emoji have gradually become so specific that they've lost a lot of their value as generic pictographs. If anything he's complaining that they're too clear now, not that they're unclear.

      22 votes
      1. [5]
        Gaywallet
        Link Parent
        Just because the emoji exist now doesn't mean that everyone is so well versed in them that they are going to choose the most specific one. In fact, if I search my phone or browser for "alcohol"...

        Just because the emoji exist now doesn't mean that everyone is so well versed in them that they are going to choose the most specific one.

        In fact, if I search my phone or browser for "alcohol" nothing comes up. If I search "beer" I don't see the emoji for wine or a tumbler of alcohol or a mai tai.

        It's ignoring how we choose to find emoji, how we decide on which emoji to use, and the fact that even if you are aware of the emoji you can be using it for different purposes.

        The English language, for example, has a plethora of synonyms for the word "bad" which all add additional clarity to the meaning - what's the magnitude of the "bad", is the bad a moral bad or immoral bad, is the bad harmful, how does the bad make you feel, etc.

        And yet, many people still use the word "bad" when they could have used atrocious, ill, rotten, delinquent, evil, dangerous, or something else. In fact, some people may even choose to use one of those words when they actually mean to use "bad".

        By their nature, messages are abstract. Humans are fallible. In the end, there's no such thing as "too clear". Unless you're omniscient, there is no way to deduce whether someone is using an emoji as a pictograph, as an illustration, or for some other reason.

        4 votes
        1. [4]
          Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          The article isn't ignoring that at all. It addresses it head-on: That's a very valid point to make. I started trying to use emoji a while ago, but gave up pretty quickly because there are just too...

          It's ignoring how we choose to find emoji, how we decide on which emoji to use, and the fact that even if you are aware of the emoji you can be using it for different purposes.

          The article isn't ignoring that at all. It addresses it head-on:

          The awkwardness of the interfaces used to access emoji amplify that change. Overwhelmed by choice, we’ve become more tempted to type in a word and have the device offer matches, as some emoji interfaces allow. [...] Matching icons to words encourages fixity of meaning, especially as it becomes harder to find any single emoji by scrolling.

          That's a very valid point to make. I started trying to use emoji a while ago, but gave up pretty quickly because there are just too many options and it's too hard to find the one you want - or to even know if the one you want exists. There are now nearly 3,000 emoji. Lots of people aren't going to bother to learn even a significant number of them.

          And, by linking emoji directly to words, they become nothing more than direct representations of those words - as the author goes to great pains to point out. As he says, you can't just pick the "martini" emoji and use it to represent cocktails in general:

          it’s so detailed and specific that its individual utility wanes. It’s not an icon for a cocktail, but a picture of a martini (a dirty one, with an olive, no less). That’s been the trend in emojiland: The cocktail has been joined by a beer (🍺), red wine (🍷), whiskey (πŸ₯ƒ), and even a mai tai (🍹), for example. There are clinking glasses of both beer (🍻) and champagne (πŸ₯‚). More granularity and specificity offer more choice, but those choices are no longer ideographic; they are pictographic at best, and perhaps merely illustrative.

          You have to pick exactly the right emoji for exactly the type of alcoholic drink you're talking about because there is no longer a generic emoji which refers to alcoholic drinks in general. To use your example, it's as if the word "bad" no longer exists, and only the synonyms are available. There's no longer a generic word for something that isn't good.

          10 votes
          1. [3]
            Gaywallet
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            I just find it weird because this is how it's always been. I mean, sure, you could potentially make the argument that before emoji existed in the time of emoticons, there wasn't exactly an easy...

            I just find it weird because this is how it's always been. I mean, sure, you could potentially make the argument that before emoji existed in the time of emoticons, there wasn't exactly an easy keyboard to search shortcuts to make a winking face, but it's not like there weren't pages online dedicated to archiving these emoticons and "naming" them.

            You have to pick exactly the right emoji for exactly the type of alcoholic drink you're talking about because there is no longer a generic emoji which refers to alcoholic drinks

            But no one does this.

            To use your example, it's as if the word "bad" no longer exists, and only the synonyms are available. There's no longer a generic word for something that isn't good.

            It really isn't applicable though because no emojis disappeared and you can STILL use any of the cocktail emojis to indicate that you want to drink. No one is going to see "do u want to get 🍺 tonight?" and think it's fundamentally any different than "do u want to get 🍷 tonight?" or "do u want to get drinks tonight?"

            (and that's completely ignoring that it's pretty unlikely someone would substitute a word for an emoji in the first place... emojis tend to be used to add context, and not to replace words)

            2 votes
            1. [2]
              ThreeMachines
              Link Parent
              I do. (Although I would never have considered 🍺 generic for "alcoholic drinks", even if it were the only option.) I would. Although "drinks" is somewhat agnostic, I would read 🍺 or 🍷as contextual...

              But no one does this.

              I do. (Although I would never have considered 🍺 generic for "alcoholic drinks", even if it were the only option.)

              No one is going to see "do u want to get 🍺 tonight?" and think it's fundamentally any different than "do u want to get 🍷 tonight?" or "do u want to get drinks tonight?"

              I would. Although "drinks" is somewhat agnostic, I would read 🍺 or 🍷as contextual clues to what the other person has in mind; I'd be taken aback if I agreed to 🍷 and they suggested a dive bar.

              (and that's completely ignoring that it's pretty unlikely someone would substitute a word for an emoji in the first place... emojis tend to be used to add context, and not to replace words)

              There's an element of personal style here; I know people who do drop-in replacement of words with emoji (like your examples), others who use emoji to amplify corresponding words, and still others who only use emoji for abstract expressive effect.

              8 votes
              1. Gaywallet
                Link Parent
                If someone asked you if you wanted to go get beers or wines and you ended up at a bar would you be surprised? Or would you ask for clarity? Someone could actually use the words "beers", "wines",...

                If someone asked you if you wanted to go get beers or wines and you ended up at a bar would you be surprised? Or would you ask for clarity? Someone could actually use the words "beers", "wines", "drinks", or something entirely different and yet the idea is still the same, no? This is what I mean when I say that language is abstract and humans are fallible.

                There's an element of personal style here; I know people who do drop-in replacement of words with emoji (like your examples), others who use emoji to amplify corresponding words, and still others who only use emoji for abstract expressive effect.

                Exactly my point! You can't gatekeep emoji when it's a tool being used in many different ways. Just because you don't use the tool in a specific way doesn't mean that other ways are invalid. They add context to enhance a message, never detract.