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 <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>
> 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.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20170519/7b006f20/attachment.html>