Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

[Phake Nick via Unicode]

Is it possible to introduce variation selector for emoji with large design
variation among vendors so that when users send emoji with selectors their
variation among vendors can be minimized by asking vendors to support both
versions?

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

[Asmus Freytag via Unicode]

  
  
On 5/18/2017 10:40 AM, David Faulks via
  Unicode wrote:


  You cannot always tell things like these are
jokes, I have seen people argue seriously that Unicode should
dictate or enforce emojis before.


  

Many jokes contain a kernel of seriousness.
A./

  

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

[David Faulks via Unicode]

You cannot always tell things like these are jokes, I have seen people argue seriously that Unicode should dictate or enforce emojis before.

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

[Gabriel von Dehn via Unicode]

Again, Unicode is not intended to and cannot ban specific designs of characters 
including emoji. Unicode is responsible creating a list of characters that 
should be supported, with the goal of making textual communication online 
possible through a standardised encoding. Unicode is not responsible for 
designing these characters, that is up to the vendors to decide.
From Unicodes Website: "Unicode provides a unique number for every character, 
no matter what the platform, no matter what the program, no matter what the 
language.”; "The Unicode Consortium was founded to develop, extend and promote 
use of the Unicode Standard, which specifies the representation of text in 
modern software products and standards.” 
(http://www.unicode.org/standard/WhatIsUnicode.html)

If you wish that a certain vendor - like Google or Apple - democratise their 
process of designing characters you should make that clear to them. Posting on 
this list will do absolutely nothing.

—

> On 18 May 2017, at 19:53, Shakil Anwar via Unicode  
> wrote:
> 
> A more democratic solution is to allow the global public to both submit and 
> vote on emoji designs. Rather than allow a small number of (probably) north 
> american white males to dictate emojis in a 'colonial' process based on their 
> own world and personal view.
> The Unicode consortium can vote to change the process and now the proposal 
> has been made it will speak volumes if Google, Apple etc. choose not to 
> democratise.
> ICANN chose to democratise their processes ; so can Unicode.
> 
> On 18 May 2017 at 15:16, Gabriel von Dehn via Unicode  > wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> the Unicode Consortium does not and cannot “ban” vendors from designing 
> emojis the way they wish. Unicode merely gives recommendations on how the 
> characters should be displayed. Think of the different designs on different 
> platforms like different fonts you can use (because that is actually what 
> they are): They all look slightly different and no one would hold a petition 
> for the design of characters in a font to change.
> 
> As for the gendered Emojis, those are in the Unicode specification now: 
> http://emojipedia.org/emoji-4.0/ 
> 
> If you do not like the upcoming Emoji design from Google (or anything about 
> the upcoming version of Android), you can report to Google directly, but 
> posting on this List won’t help.
> 
> 
>> On 18 May 2017, at 14:40, zelpa via Unicode > > wrote:
>> 
>> http://blog.emojipedia.org/rip-blobs-google-redesigns-emojis/ 
>> 
>> 
>> Is this some kind of joke? Have Google put ANY thought into their emoji 
>> design? First they bastardise the cute blob emoji, then they make their 
>> emoji gendered, now they've literally just copied Apple's emoji. It's 
>> sickening. Disgusting. I propose we hold a petition for the Unicode 
>> Consortium to ban Google from designing emoji in the future, and make them 
>> revert back to the Android 5 designs. Everyone in favour of this please 
>> leave a response, anybody not in favour please rethink your opinion.
> 
> 

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

[Asmus Freytag via Unicode]

On 5/18/2017 9:48 AM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:

Asmus Freytag wrote:


Given that one co-chair of the Emoji Subcommittee is from Apple and
the other is from Google, you may wish to rethink your expectations
about all this.

I'd expect "zelpa" to feel validated by this info in their concern,
wouldn't you?

Well, it's public information: http://www.unicode.org/emoji/

The more important point is the one others have been making: Unicode
does not and cannot attempt to dictate to any vendor how to design
glyphs, either for normal characters like A and Ω and 丱 or for emoji.

Unicode does insist that the glyph design not misrepresent the meaning
of the character, which I believe was Michael Everson's objection to
vendors implementing U+1F3B1 BILLIARDS as a lone 8-ball. It's not clear
to me that the Google redesign discussed here goes that far; this seems
more like objection on aesthetic grounds.
  


While this is all true, it seems to miss the point behind the whole 
complaint.


Attempts to counter "tongue-in-cheek" complaints with literal facts 
aren't always effective. :)


A./

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

[Shakil Anwar via Unicode]

A more democratic solution is to allow the global public to both submit and
vote on emoji designs. Rather than allow a small number of (probably) north
american white males to dictate emojis in a 'colonial' process based on
their own world and personal view.
The Unicode consortium can vote to change the process and now the proposal
has been made it will speak volumes if Google, Apple etc. choose not to
democratise.
ICANN chose to democratise their processes ; so can Unicode.

On 18 May 2017 at 15:16, Gabriel von Dehn via Unicode 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the Unicode Consortium does not and cannot “ban” vendors from designing
> emojis the way they wish. Unicode merely gives recommendations on how the
> characters should be displayed. Think of the different designs on different
> platforms like different fonts you can use (because that is actually what
> they *are*): They all look slightly different and no one would hold a
> petition for the design of characters in a font to change.
>
> As for the gendered Emojis, those are in the Unicode specification now:
> http://emojipedia.org/emoji-4.0/
>
> If you do not like the upcoming Emoji design from Google (or anything
> about the upcoming version of Android), you can report to Google directly,
> but posting on this List won’t help.
>
>
> On 18 May 2017, at 14:40, zelpa via Unicode  wrote:
>
> http://blog.emojipedia.org/rip-blobs-google-redesigns-emojis/
>
> Is this some kind of joke? Have Google put ANY thought into their emoji
> design? First they bastardise the cute blob emoji, then they make their
> emoji gendered, now they've literally just copied Apple's emoji. It's
> sickening. Disgusting. I propose we hold a petition for the Unicode
> Consortium to ban Google from designing emoji in the future, and make them
> revert back to the Android 5 designs. Everyone in favour of this please
> leave a response, anybody not in favour please rethink your opinion.
>
>
>

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

[Doug Ewell via Unicode]

Asmus Freytag wrote:

>> Given that one co-chair of the Emoji Subcommittee is from Apple and
>> the other is from Google, you may wish to rethink your expectations
>> about all this.
>
> I'd expect "zelpa" to feel validated by this info in their concern,
> wouldn't you?

Well, it's public information: http://www.unicode.org/emoji/

The more important point is the one others have been making: Unicode
does not and cannot attempt to dictate to any vendor how to design
glyphs, either for normal characters like A and Ω and 丱 or for emoji.

Unicode does insist that the glyph design not misrepresent the meaning
of the character, which I believe was Michael Everson's objection to
vendors implementing U+1F3B1 BILLIARDS as a lone 8-ball. It's not clear
to me that the Google redesign discussed here goes that far; this seems
more like objection on aesthetic grounds. 
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

[Asmus Freytag via Unicode]

On 5/18/2017 7:41 AM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:

zelpa wrote:


This is my real issue, Apple disregards guidelines, sets a de facto
standard, Google races to copy them. It's actually sad to see how far
other vendors will go to copy Apple's designs. I honestly think the
consortium should try harder to enforce the guidelines instead of
letting Apple be the ruler and expecting others to obey.

Given that one co-chair of the Emoji Subcommittee is from Apple and the
other is from Google, you may wish to rethink your expectations about
all this.



I'd expect "zelpa" to feel validated by this info in their concern, 
wouldn't you?


A./

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

[Gabriel von Dehn via Unicode]

As said, Unicode does not and cannot enforce anything. Unicode sets the 
recommendation, but has no power whatsoever of enforcing every vendor to meet 
these recommendations, nor does it expect vendors to follow Apples designs.


> On 18 May 2017, at 17:26, zelpa via Unicode  wrote:
> 
> >Unambiguously, Apple has failed to meet these technical guidelines,
> >in a blatant and unapologetic manner, and that’s why I liked the blobs —
> >they bucked norms, refused to conform to trends, and made emoji more
> >friendly to people who didn’t want to attach a gender to their every
> >expression. I think that’s valuable and I’m sad to see it go.
> 
> At least someone realised it was a (half) joke. This is my real issue, Apple 
> disregards guidelines, sets a de facto standard, Google races to copy them. 
> It's actually sad to see how far other vendors will go to copy Apple's 
> designs. I honestly think the consortium should try harder to enforce the 
> guidelines instead of letting Apple be the ruler and expecting others to obey.
> 
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Rebecca T <637...@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> Well, you’re certainly not alone in your distaste for the new design. @eevee
> just today said “cool how we improved gender diversity by slowly changing 
> 
> from ‘ambiguous/neutral’ to ‘explicit color-coded binary, default usually 
> 
> male’” 
> 
> On the other hand, quoting @zaccolley: “if you treat emoji like pictures: 
> 
> yay blobs, if you treat emoji like language: yay consistency” 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, the new emoji designs will make our digital communication less
> ambiguous — I’m just not sure if that’s a good change or not, and I
> certainly don’t enjoy Apple being the default (on principle and for their
> designs specifically).
> 
> Quoting UTR #51: “General-purpose emoji for people and body parts should
> also not be given overly specific images: the general recommendation is to
> be as neutral as possible regarding race, ethnicity, and gender.”
> 
> Unambiguously, Apple has failed to meet these technical guidelines,
> in a blatant and unapologetic manner, and that’s why I liked the blobs —
> they bucked norms, refused to conform to trends, and made emoji more
> friendly to people who didn’t want to attach a gender to their every
> expression. I think that’s valuable and I’m sad to see it go.
> 
> And a serious response to this joke letter: Given that Google pays $18,000 /
> annum to vote on new emoji, it seems unlikely that the Consortium will just
> kick them out.
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:40 AM, zelpa via Unicode  > wrote:
> http://blog.emojipedia.org/rip-blobs-google-redesigns-emojis/ 
> 
> 
> Is this some kind of joke? Have Google put ANY thought into their emoji 
> design? First they bastardise the cute blob emoji, then they make their emoji 
> gendered, now they've literally just copied Apple's emoji. It's sickening. 
> Disgusting. I propose we hold a petition for the Unicode Consortium to ban 
> Google from designing emoji in the future, and make them revert back to the 
> Android 5 designs. Everyone in favour of this please leave a response, 
> anybody not in favour please rethink your opinion.
> 
> 

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

[Gabriel von Dehn via Unicode]

Hi,

the Unicode Consortium does not and cannot “ban” vendors from designing emojis 
the way they wish. Unicode merely gives recommendations on how the characters 
should be displayed. Think of the different designs on different platforms like 
different fonts you can use (because that is actually what they are): They all 
look slightly different and no one would hold a petition for the design of 
characters in a font to change.

As for the gendered Emojis, those are in the Unicode specification now: 
http://emojipedia.org/emoji-4.0/ 

If you do not like the upcoming Emoji design from Google (or anything about the 
upcoming version of Android), you can report to Google directly, but posting on 
this List won’t help.


> On 18 May 2017, at 14:40, zelpa via Unicode  wrote:
> 
> http://blog.emojipedia.org/rip-blobs-google-redesigns-emojis/ 
> 
> 
> Is this some kind of joke? Have Google put ANY thought into their emoji 
> design? First they bastardise the cute blob emoji, then they make their emoji 
> gendered, now they've literally just copied Apple's emoji. It's sickening. 
> Disgusting. I propose we hold a petition for the Unicode Consortium to ban 
> Google from designing emoji in the future, and make them revert back to the 
> Android 5 designs. Everyone in favour of this please leave a response, 
> anybody not in favour please rethink your opinion.

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

[Doug Ewell via Unicode]

zelpa wrote:

> This is my real issue, Apple disregards guidelines, sets a de facto
> standard, Google races to copy them. It's actually sad to see how far
> other vendors will go to copy Apple's designs. I honestly think the
> consortium should try harder to enforce the guidelines instead of
> letting Apple be the ruler and expecting others to obey.

Given that one co-chair of the Emoji Subcommittee is from Apple and the
other is from Google, you may wish to rethink your expectations about
all this.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

[zelpa via Unicode]

>Unambiguously, Apple has failed to meet these technical guidelines,
>in a blatant and unapologetic manner, and that’s why I liked the blobs —
>they bucked norms, refused to conform to trends, and made emoji more
>friendly to people who didn’t want to attach a gender to their every
>expression. I think that’s valuable and I’m sad to see it go.

At least someone realised it was a (half) joke. This is my real issue,
Apple disregards guidelines, sets a de facto standard, Google races to copy
them. It's actually sad to see how far other vendors will go to copy
Apple's designs. I honestly think the consortium should try harder to
enforce the guidelines instead of letting Apple be the ruler and expecting
others to obey.

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Rebecca T <637...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, you’re certainly not alone in your distaste for the new design.
> @eevee
> just today said “cool how we improved gender diversity by slowly changing
> 
> from ‘ambiguous/neutral’ to ‘explicit color-coded binary, default usually
> 
> male’” 
>
> On the other hand, quoting @zaccolley: “if you treat emoji like pictures:
> 
> yay blobs, if you treat emoji like language: yay consistency”
> 
>
> Ultimately, the new emoji designs will make our digital communication less
> ambiguous — I’m just not sure if that’s a good change or not, and I
> certainly don’t enjoy Apple being the default (on principle and for their
> designs specifically).
>
> Quoting UTR #51: “General-purpose emoji for people and body parts should
> also not be given overly specific images: the general recommendation is to
> be as neutral as possible regarding race, ethnicity, and gender.”
>
> Unambiguously, Apple has failed to meet these technical guidelines,
> in a blatant and unapologetic manner, and that’s why I liked the blobs —
> they bucked norms, refused to conform to trends, and made emoji more
> friendly to people who didn’t want to attach a gender to their every
> expression. I think that’s valuable and I’m sad to see it go.
>
> And a serious response to this joke letter: Given that Google pays $18,000
> /
> annum to vote on new emoji, it seems unlikely that the Consortium will just
> kick them out.
>
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:40 AM, zelpa via Unicode 
> wrote:
>
>> http://blog.emojipedia.org/rip-blobs-google-redesigns-emojis/
>>
>> Is this some kind of joke? Have Google put ANY thought into their emoji
>> design? First they bastardise the cute blob emoji, then they make their
>> emoji gendered, now they've literally just copied Apple's emoji. It's
>> sickening. Disgusting. I propose we hold a petition for the Unicode
>> Consortium to ban Google from designing emoji in the future, and make them
>> revert back to the Android 5 designs. Everyone in favour of this please
>> leave a response, anybody not in favour please rethink your opinion.
>>
>
>

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

[David Faulks via Unicode]

And what makes you think Unicode has any authority to ‘ban’ Google from doing 
anything at all (hint: Unicode has zero ability to enforce anything).


On Thu, 5/18/17, zelpa via Unicode  wrote:

 Subject: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji
 To: "Unicode Public" 
 Received: Thursday, May 18, 2017, 7:40 AM
 
 http://blog.emojipedia.org/rip-blobs-google-redesigns-emojis/
 
 Is this some kind of joke? Have Google put ANY thought
 into their emoji design? First they bastardise the cute blob
 emoji, then they make their emoji gendered, now they've
 literally just copied Apple's emoji. It's sickening.
 Disgusting. I propose we hold a petition for the Unicode
 Consortium to ban Google from designing emoji in the future,
 and make them revert back to the Android 5 designs. Everyone
 in favour of this please leave a response, anybody not in
 favour please rethink your opinion.