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

Always Bet on Text (2014)

graydon2.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 349 posts

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#321

Post by gjvnq »

codethief wrote: post #24
necovek wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emojis evolved from simple text like ":)" or ":/". And for the new set of emojis, half the time I am not sure what the sentiment is being expressed!

Add to that that, depending on the emoji font, the emoji will look completely different[0]. So as the sender you have no guarantee that the recipient of your message will actually interpret your emoji as you intended. It really is beyond me why the Unicode consortium thought that putting emojis in a character set would be a good idea. Sure, having a code point in your character set that represents a bird[1] makes sen…

They did it for compatibility with Japanese encodings.

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#322

Post by alan-crowe »

robenkleene wrote: post #88

The question is whether these advantages are because text is a better communication medium, or because of the limitations of our technology? Take using a computer to type a word versus draw a picture: Effectively everyone who uses a computer can type a word, but I'd bet less than 10% could draw a circle. But put a piece of paper in front of someone and effectively everyone can draw a circle. This points to there bein…

For an example of shiny new technology being better than text, have a look at Kevin Simler's interactive essay

http://35.161.88.15/interactive/going-critical/

There is something about playing with the sliders and watching that plague die out and flare up, that makes the point with a vividness beyond words.

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#323

Post by CRConrad »

iamcurious wrote: post #303
scroot wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walter Ong said something like (paraphrasing): "If the phrase 'a picture is worth a thousand words' is true, then why does it need to be a phrase at all?"

Cause that phrase is just 7 words. A picture would have 993 other unnecessary words.

Never mind the 993, show us a picture that conveys those seven -- and any 993 other unnecessary ones you want. If the seven were true, that should be easy. Heck, I won't hold it against you if there are as many as 1,042 extra words, or as few as 763.

But I betcha you can't find one that clearly says what seven little words of text do. Which goes to show that those seven little words are a lie.

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#324

Post by sellyme »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #286
BeetleB wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strong disagree on photos. I find photos to be an excellent way to convey emotions that didn't exist. Also very common to have multiple people conclude very different things from a photo. Very misleading. I'll also add that well written prose has moved me (and many others) emotionally in more powerful ways than any photo ever has. Your Great Depression era photo conveys emotions only because of the context around it…

>Also very common to have multiple people conclude very different things from a photo. But that's true for text, too. The US just had a very major politicized event where two sides had two wildly different conclusions over what one man's words meant. And there's a grand legal tradition of taking one specific document and interpreting what its words mean and applying it to a plethora of situations. There's plenty of p…

All three of your examples concern people with a vested interest in arriving at a certain conclusion established long before they ever actually look at the text in question. No communication medium will solve the problem of humans trying to bend that communication to fit their pre-existing opinions.

For neutral observers, I would definitely argue that text is far more concrete than photos. There's a whole host of reasons for this in my opinion, but one that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that humans are used to seeing images in three dimensions, whereas photos are typically two-dimensional. By removing an entire axis of data you're introducing far more room for ambiguity than could have existed previously.

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#325

Post by sellyme »

mattnewton wrote: post #249
SubjectToChange wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reply is in text. Would you care to link a set of paintings to express your argument instead?

It’s also in ascii, is that superior to all other character sets, or an accident of history?

> It’s also in ascii

No it isn't:

> 10:48:55.380 document.location.href

> 10:48:55.384 "https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26166797"

> 10:48:57.723 document.characterSet

> 10:48:57.726 "UTF-8"

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#326

Post by criddell »

wvenable wrote: post #267
criddell wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If SVG is text, then so is StarWars.mpg.b64.

Some SVG is very readable and easy to modify. I'm no designer but I've opened up SVG files and made modifications to get what I want (remove elements, change colors, etc). Not all SVG authoring tools make SVG's easy to read/modify. Tools in the 90's used to the same thing with HTML. Are you going to argue HTML isn't text?

> Are you going to argue HTML isn't text?

Go to google.com and view source. That's text, right?

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#327

Post by frosted-flakes »

c22 wrote: post #316
LocalH wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a valid point, however. What is now widely considered to be a "water gun" emoji started out as an actual gun, but Apple decided at one point that they were going to be "progressive" and changed it to a water gun. To me, this upends the entire idea of emoji having a stable definition.

It's fascinating to me that they did this with the pistol, but :knife:, :bomb:, :dagger:, :crossed_swords:, :bow_and_arrow:, et al all look as threatening as ever.

But those weapons don't have the same highly political negative associations as guns do. Knives are tools more than weapons; bombs can kill a lot of people (see the 2013 Boston Marathon attack or IEDs in Afghanistan), but their typical stylization is also very cartoonish and there isn't an NRA for bombs; swords are archaic and mostly shown as medieval or pirate weapons; and bows and arrows as weapons are also archaic, and they're only used today for hunting.

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#328

Post by dmingod666 »

criddell wrote: post #326
wvenable wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some SVG is very readable and easy to modify. I'm no designer but I've opened up SVG files and made modifications to get what I want (remove elements, change colors, etc). Not all SVG authoring tools make SVG's easy to read/modify. Tools in the 90's used to the same thing with HTML. Are you going to argue HTML isn't text?

> Are you going to argue HTML isn't text? Go to google.com and view source. That's text, right?

Compression is part of human communication also. Sometimes it's used to keep the communication short, sometime to hide the meaning behind what is said.

lol, brb, PFA, W.H.O., IMHO, IANAL, GPA, GTA.. word soup for a different audience..

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#329

Post by wvenable »

criddell wrote: post #326
wvenable wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some SVG is very readable and easy to modify. I'm no designer but I've opened up SVG files and made modifications to get what I want (remove elements, change colors, etc). Not all SVG authoring tools make SVG's easy to read/modify. Tools in the 90's used to the same thing with HTML. Are you going to argue HTML isn't text?

> Are you going to argue HTML isn't text? Go to google.com and view source. That's text, right?

So because google.com is hard to read, HTML is not text?

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#330

Post by nirav »

aftbit wrote: post #268

As usual, context matters. If you're trying to convey complex thoughts about abstract matters, then language is the way to do it. If you are trying to convey deep emotional states, then a photo or video is probably better. You cannot convert the 1st amendment into photos, and you cannot convert the Mona Lisa smile into words. Just try to use words to describe either of these photos and see how they fall short: https:…

Abstract thoughts are conveyed with a class of language, this has not worked well in its predominance historically ( only math survived) similarly how music is communicated but not accepted as a universal language.
Post reply on HN