Petition to ban Google from designing emoji
Gabriel von Dehn via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Thu May 18 09:38:34 CDT 2017
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 <unicode at unicode.org> 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 <637275 at gmail.com <mailto:637275 at 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 <https://twitter.com/eevee/status/865110401192648705>
> from ‘ambiguous/neutral’ to ‘explicit color-coded binary, default usually <https://twitter.com/eevee/status/865110401192648705>
> male’” <https://twitter.com/eevee/status/865110401192648705>
> On the other hand, quoting @zaccolley: “if you treat emoji like pictures: <https://twitter.com/zaccolley/status/865114030771507200>
> yay blobs, if you treat emoji like language: yay consistency” <https://twitter.com/zaccolley/status/865114030771507200>
> 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 <unicode at unicode.org <mailto:unicode at unicode.org>> wrote:
> http://blog.emojipedia.org/rip-blobs-google-redesigns-emojis/ <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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode