Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rejected emoji proposals

charlottebuff.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 151 posts

Re: Rejected emoji proposals

#31

Post by pfp »

kilroy123 wrote: post #17
pfp wrote: post #7

I guess I should feel relieved that I don't at least have my work discussions littered with these ones. But they're not too different from the set of infantilizing pictograms that did make their way into the standard & that grown-ups are now expected to deal with.

Really? We use slack and all staff has access to add new emojis. You can just imagine how that would turn out...

Well, at least then you could think of the addons as local slang. It's still unnecessary, but limited to the social circle at your workplace.

I didn't have a huge beef with the proprietary emojis on old skool Skype and MSN, TBH - they were technically bound to those platforms, and the platforms mostly to private social spheres where they'd form part of the local slang. (And where Skype was used at work in the 00's, people actually refrained from them and acted in a businesslike manner).

Modern day emojis being part of unicode implies that they're somehow universally understood, and that it's fine to sprinkle them around in any kind of social context. Quite horrifying, really.

Re: Rejected emoji proposals

#32

Post by JellyBeanThief »

bXVsbGVy wrote: post #27
JellyBeanThief wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Because the system is to have woman, man, and neutral for everything. Saves debate for more important things.

My issue is with those emojis is that they don't meet a few of their own criteria for a new emoji to be accepted. Their guideline: https://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html#selection_factors_i... For instance, they suggest using "elephant" to evaluate the usage: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all_2008&gprop...

Uneducated guess--somewhere someone will have archived the discussion--but I wonder if the technical complexity was also a factor. If you've made the combining characters for gender, and you've designated which characters can combine with them, but you didn't plan for characters that must be combined only in certain ways, then you're looking at having to specify all that out, and then implementers will have do their thing, and it just... wasn't worth it.

Uneducated guess, though.

EDIT: Googled. Here is a person who knows what was up: https://jenniferdaniel.substack.com/p/did-someone-say-new-em...

Re: Rejected emoji proposals

#33

Post by bXVsbGVy »

mc32 wrote: post #21
bXVsbGVy wrote: post #6

I find fascinating that many of those were rejected, but "Pregnant man" and male bride were approved. https://emojipedia.org/pregnant-man/ https://emojiguide.com/people-body/man-with-veil/

Man with veil looks like a formal wear kaffiyeh. I feel like they are missing emojis representing amputees of different types.

Also. There is no bald man, or facial hair variations.

But there is a bearded women.

https://emojipedia.org/woman-beard/

Re: Rejected emoji proposals

#34

Post by justsomehnguy »

anigbrowl wrote: post #19
siva7 wrote: post #2

Half covered by hair could be misidentified as some german dictator. PMS could also be seen as problematic in some circles.

Not without a mustache. I'm >50 and it just says 'emo kid' to me.

U+man + U+mustache = U+man-with-mustache

U+woman + U+mustache = U+woman-with-mustache

U+emo-kid + U+mustache = U+oh-noes

Re: Rejected emoji proposals

#35

Post by a1371 »

bXVsbGVy wrote: post #6

I find fascinating that many of those were rejected, but "Pregnant man" and male bride were approved. https://emojipedia.org/pregnant-man/ https://emojiguide.com/people-body/man-with-veil/

Look up proposal L2/20-190. They provide a number of good reasons for pregnant man. To summarize:

- It avoids gender stereotyping of men in Parenthood.

- couples say "we are pregnant". The term pregnant is culturally used for men too as their search shows.

- the emoji is not just for pregnancy, it is also for feeling bloated, full, and hungry.

I sometimes used this emoji for saying that I'm expecting something. My partner didn't like it.

Re: Rejected emoji proposals

#36

Post by mc32 »

bXVsbGVy wrote: post #33
mc32 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man with veil looks like a formal wear kaffiyeh. I feel like they are missing emojis representing amputees of different types.

Also. There is no bald man, or facial hair variations. But there is a bearded women. https://emojipedia.org/woman-beard/

I mean some women do have slight facial hair but most want to de-emphasize it.

Their governance seems to lack leadership and just goes with whatever pressure they feel.

Re: Rejected emoji proposals

#37

Post by lifthrasiir »

evan_ wrote: post #30
dahfizz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's less of an issue with menus as Unicode. We only have ~1 million Unicode codepoints in total. Wasting one for ever local flag would be a mistake.

Maybe they could be implemented as combinations of country flag + some kind of reusable region indicator. Like US+33 for Oregon.

Which is exactly how the current system works. You can already interchange regional flags because it allows pretty much every ISO 3166-2 identifier. It's just that most of them won't be "recommended for general interchange" (RGI) and fonts won't be universally available.

Re: Rejected emoji proposals

#38

Post by crazygringo »

anigbrowl wrote: post #16

The idea that unicode proposals have to be submitted to the unicode consortium is trash. It's be better to declare parts of the unicode standard open access (like the 2.4GHz wifi band) and just let people exchange/trade emoji sets.

Who is going to decide which emoji sets get assigned to which "open access" part? And that sets don't conflict?

If it's not the Unicode Consortium who decides, well somebody has to.

And what is my phone supposed to display when it gets an emoji from one of these sets? Is it supposed to have a URL that it downloads them from or something?

The whole point of Unicode is to be a standard of communication. So it's hard to see how a free-for-all of characters or emoji is still a standard at all.

Post reply on HN