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

Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

dafoster.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 210 posts

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#151

Post by SquareWheel »

chrisseaton wrote: post #123
pfranz wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it often in intranets, wikis, and PDF documentation. It's an additional context clue that you're leaving a closed website. The most egregious examples give you a separate click-through screen when leaving the website. Government web pages seem to do this the most. It would be nice if we could all use a standard icon or some other constant UI element--like a single underline for internal references and double un…

Yeah but why? What do people do with the information that a link is external? Do people think 'I'll follow this link - oh no wait a minute it's external I won't'?

Sure. Why not? If you're browsing a hotel you plan to stay at, you may want to spend some time learning about it before booking. Accidentally clicking an external link takes you away from that.

Techies will know to just open it in a new tab, but most will have to remember to browse back to the site manually. It can be a disruptive process.

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#152

Post by goto11 »

GuB-42 wrote: post #139
goto11 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah a lot of arguments are of the form "when Unicode can include the pile-of-poop-emoji, surely it should include ". But the question is not if the icon is practical or silly, the question is if it makes sense as a Unicode character or should be handled at some other level like a GUI control or widget. Should GUI icons, widgets and controls be covered by Unicode? That is a can of worms. I understand the usefulness o…

As for the pile-of-poop emoji there is a very good reason for it to be included in Unicode: it is one of the original emoji, made by Softbank in 1997. The reason: Softbank and Docomo both used proprietary emoji sets, widely used in Japan for text messages. Not including these in Unicode would have resulted in a choice: be compatible with the rest of the world, or keep using the emojis that became part of their cultur…

It made total sense to include emojis in Unicode initially.

And a great idea to put them outside the 16-bit plane, so platforms would be forced to support characters beyond the BMP because of the public demand for emojis.

But I think going forward, emojis should be handled outside of Unicode. They are really small illustrations rather than characters or symbols.

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#153

Post by recursive »

gnulinux wrote: post #127
cabalamat wrote: post #20

> The UTC rejected the proposals to add “external link sign”, most recently in L2/12-169. It is unclear that the entity in question is actually an element of plain text Nor is Pile of Poo, and that's in Unicode. If external Link was added to Unicode, I expect it would be more used than 1000s of characters that are in it.

> Nor is Pile of Poo I really really don't understand this point. We have evidence that people use pile of poo in plaintext today in instant messaging all the time. Isn't this enough evidence that pile of poo belongs to plaintext? I'm not trying to be facetious; it's really puzzling to me. Since every single comment in this thread is about pile of poo, whereas it seems to me the worst possible example since it's such…

It's only possible to use it in a text message because it's a unicode character. If external link was a character, would people use it? I don't know. Do you?

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#154

Post by kyle-rb »

gimboland wrote: post #114
hkai wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find myself disagreeing with your agreement because of the examples of symbols that are clearly not text. One of them, BROKEN CIRCLE WITH NORTHWEST ARROW, could actually be used for the external link symbol if it were mirrored!

In an RTL language, you don't even need to mirror it. Or, to put it another way: if you think it needs to point to the right, is that because the text you read flows that way? This then makes me wonder if the large portion of the world's population that read right-to-left find the currently widely-used external link symbol (as discussed in the article) a bit jarring.

Or does it point to the right because a new tab will open, to the right of the current one?

Come to think of it, are tabs aligned toward the right side when the browser/OS is set to an RTL language?

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#156

Post by vagab0nd »

Talk about timing, I was just looking for this in unicode for my website yesterday. Didn't find anything that looked good so ended up going with Font Awesome: https://fontawesome.com/icons/external-link-alt?style=solid

I think it's a missed opportunity for unicode.

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#157

Post by yoz-y »

squiggleblaz wrote: post #75
yoz-y wrote: post #66

I'd like the condition on the plain text to be relaxed. I would love to be able to use Unicode for creating basic interfaces. I would love to have basic interface elements such as a magnifying glass, "save" icons and external link to be part of the standard. Maybe they don't strictly find their use but for one people would find the use if they were there, and two, there are already (granted, grandfathered) elements t…

There's the PUA. And I mean, it's not like it doesn't happen. See font awesome for instance.

I use the awesome versions of fonts in terminal for power line and stuff. But that's kind of the thing, it can't be ubiquitous and easily reused. If every system had it's interface font it would make a lot of stuff easier. An example would be glyphs on buttons that are almost always the same.

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#158

Post by TeMPOraL »

rootlocus wrote: post #47
TeMPOraL wrote: post #42

I find myself agreeing with the rejection. As much as I dislike the ridiculous amount of emojis in Unicode, and their increasingly widespread use, they do fit plain text communication, whereas an "external link" symbol does not. My heuristic is something I'll call SMS sniff test : would it make sense to type that symbol into a text message? If it wouldn't, then it doesn't belong in Unicode. "External link" symbol tel…

I'm not a regular user of SMS, but it seems to me like adding links to SMS messages is either already available or not a bad idea. The "SMS sniff test" seems pretty weak to me. A better one would be a printed document.

I thought about SMS messages because they're plaintext. Printed documents are raster graphics; once the ink hits the paper, you don't have text anymore.

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#159

Post by syrrim »

Aeolun wrote: post #106
dan-robertson wrote: post #96

I think an issue with the arguments here is that each side is making its arguments based around quite different standards. Unicode have two standards for inclusion of symbols, one for adding new symbols and one for merging in characters from other character sets. The rejection is based on the first standard for adding new characters. The arguments against it seem to be based on taking the second standard as precedent…

So the smartest way to go about this is to create a whole new character set for external link symbols? That seems like a really roundabout way to get this thing accepted.

Create a custom font with your custom character in the private use area. Use the popularity of your font to demonstrate pressing need.

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#160

Post by gnulinux »

recursive wrote: post #153
gnulinux wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nor is Pile of Poo I really really don't understand this point. We have evidence that people use pile of poo in plaintext today in instant messaging all the time. Isn't this enough evidence that pile of poo belongs to plaintext? I'm not trying to be facetious; it's really puzzling to me. Since every single comment in this thread is about pile of poo, whereas it seems to me the worst possible example since it's such…

It's only possible to use it in a text message because it's a unicode character. If external link was a character, would people use it? I don't know. Do you?

Maybe, maybe not, we don't know. What I know is that even my mom and grandma use pile of poo on facebook. Will they use "external link" symbol? I would guess not, but maybe.
Post reply on HN