Re: "Oh that's what you meant!: reducing emoji misunderstanding"

I would even add the Emojis are in fact a new separate language, written with its own script, its own grammar/syntax, and its specific layout and combinations (ligatured clusters, partly documented in Unicode) and sometimes specificities about colors of rendering (e.g. the human skin colors, or

Re: "Oh that's what you meant!: reducing emoji misunderstanding"

Christoph Päper wrote, >> Or, people could just say what they mean, using language. > > That’s not how language (or communication in general) works. At all. Language works best when people say what they mean and mean what they say, just as democracy works best with an informed electorate. The

Re: "Oh that's what you meant!: reducing emoji misunderstanding"

Philippe Verdy wrote, > There's no evident and universal way to convert > emojis to natural language ... Indeed. Emoji characters apparently mean whatever their users want them to mean. Such meanings may be perceived differently by various users or communities, as the subject line indicates,

Re: "Oh that's what you meant!: reducing emoji misunderstanding"

Doug Ewell : > > Or, people could just say what they mean, using language. That’s not how language (or communication in general) works. At all.

Re: "Oh that's what you meant!: reducing emoji misunderstanding"

such system already exists since long in various forums and chats, you already write a word between colons, you get the emoji without having to select it in a list or remember their code point and use complex input, but there's a way to reverse this conversion if needed. The conversion of

Re: "Oh that's what you meant!: reducing emoji misunderstanding"

Doug Ewell responded to Peter Constable, >> then an automated system could translate one user’s message to >> display an emoji to a second user that more closely reflects >> the emotion intended by the first user. > > Or, people could just say what they mean, using language. How about some kind

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

Fonts when they are not copyrightable are still patentable. The complexity of IP rights is growing and their scope of application as well (sometimes with backward effects in time, including on the "public domain"). I would not bet anything on a past decision by a US court, and anyway we're not

Re: "Oh that's what you meant!: reducing emoji misunderstanding"

Peter Constable wrote: > E.g., how does U+1F624 “” compare with U+1F62C “”? A given user may > perceive the two differently, and for either one a given user’s > perception may differ when evaluating the depiction used in one app/ > platform versus another. They suggest that, if users gave a >

"Oh that's what you meant!: reducing emoji misunderstanding"

Somewhat interesting: a paper from a conference in Italy a couple of months ago: http://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/portal/en/research/oh-thats-what-you-meant(20b8923c-28da-49ed-bc78-fcc741db3187).html I anticipated old news about misunderstanding based on presentation differences on the level of