New emojis in 2023-2024

Post by dagmx » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 12:21 AM UTC

lapcat wrote: post #168

dagmx wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The emoji is consistent across their system. That’s the consistency that matters to most users.

Incorrect, because emoji are being used to communicate with other people on different systems. That's their primary purpose, not to write to yourself.

Post by dagmx » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 1:20 AM UTC

lapcat wrote: post #192

dagmx wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure why you’re struggling with this concept. It is consistent for the user on whatever system they are on. If they switch between apps, they see the same emoji that they’re familiar with. The web developer doesn’t have to care what the icon looks like. They just say: use this emoji that semantically means “flower”. They know it may look different to other users but it will look like what that individual user…

> I’m not sure why you’re struggling with this concept. I'm not struggling with any concept. It's a simple fact that as emojis continually get added to Unicode, not all browsers and operating systems support all emoji, and so one person sees a broken black box where another person sees the emoji. That's gross inconsistency.

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 2:28 AM UTC

jrmg wrote: post #111

slily wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words you succumbed to peer pressure from a crowd that is obsessed with identity labels. I see people of all shades use tones. To me it just says "btw I'm ". I can't help but think "who cares" in the back of my mind. I don't think yellow icons "represent me" either, I'm not self-inserting into The Simpsons. At the risk of being overly dramatic for a discussion about emoji, I think that dismissing the concept…

In other words you succumbed to peer pressure from a crowd that is obsessed with identity labels. That’s not what I consider myself to have done. My non-white friends and colleagues are not, in my experience, ‘obsessed with identity labels’. They were just choosing an emoji that looked a little more like them, and a little less like the ‘default’ [that did _not_ look like them, but arguably did look like me] when rep…

Post by terracottalite » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 6:45 PM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #158

terracottalite wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though in Linux there isn't only one window manager. This guy/woman/? chose to use his specific window manager (probably a tiling one), but he/she/xe could also use GNOME if he/she/xe wanted to. GNOME does have an emoji keyboard. btw, this is much cooler than GNOME or whatever...

> They chose to use their specific window manager (probably a tiling one), but they could also use GNOME if they wanted to. GNOME does have an emoji keyboard. There you go! Made it much easier for you and the reader! But really, > I'm not sure which window manager they're using, but GNOME does have an emoji keyboard Even better!

Post by johnofthesea » Tue, Jul 25, 2023, 11:23 PM UTC

lapcat wrote: post #192

dagmx wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure why you’re struggling with this concept. It is consistent for the user on whatever system they are on. If they switch between apps, they see the same emoji that they’re familiar with. The web developer doesn’t have to care what the icon looks like. They just say: use this emoji that semantically means “flower”. They know it may look different to other users but it will look like what that individual user…

> I’m not sure why you’re struggling with this concept. I'm not struggling with any concept. It's a simple fact that as emojis continually get added to Unicode, not all browsers and operating systems support all emoji, and so one person sees a broken black box where another person sees the emoji. That's gross inconsistency.