Thoughts on Emoji Selection Process

[Julian Wels via Unicode]

Hi there!

In light of the recently featured 179 proposed Emoji Draft Candidates
<http://unicode.org/emoji/future/emoji-candidates.html> for Emoji 12.0, I'd
like to ask if the selection factors for future emojis shouldn't be more
restrictive or rather just enforced more strongly.

Extreme Specificity
For instance, one thing that struck me as odd in previous releases was the
tendency to extreme specificity. I always thought of Emoji as symbols and
not as concrete images.

In a lot of ways Emoji already do that. Every Emoji in the
"Smileys"-category represents an emotion that can be used to enrich the
meaning of text messages, and that's perfect! Then we have a lot of Objects
such as:

   - Hamburger: Represents fast food.
   - Apple: Represents (healthy) food.
   - Bomb: Represents threat.
   - Wheelchair (12.0): Represents physical disabilities.

And those are all great objects because also function as symbols!
But there are far more, very specific or redundant objects (just from 12.0
proposal alone):

   - Guide Dod: Represents specific physical disability.
   - Service Dog: Represents specific physical disability.
   - Motorized wheelchair: Represents specific physical disability.
   - Mechanical arm: Represents specific physical disability.
   - Mechanical leg: Represents specific physical disability.
   - Ear with a hearing aid: Represents specific physical disability.


For one, I think that it should not be the job of Emojis to express as many
words as possible. And - although it seems a bit counterintuitively -
having all those symbols for the sake of more inclusivity is extremely
exclusionary! What about the hundreds of other disabilities that are not
listed here?

In case you get the impression this is a problem with disabilities or the
12.0 proposal, let me show you what I like to call the Emoji
"Family-Problem".
First of all: I don't think that a man and women should represent all
couples, and I don't think a family should be represented by a man, woman,
and their children. But I also don't believe that we should try to include
every possible variant that comes to mind, because as stated before, this
will lead to more exclusion through specificity.
Currently, we have (among others): 1 father with 2 sons, 2 fathers with 2
sons, 2 fathers with 1 son, 2 fathers with 1 son and 1 daughter, 2 fathers
with 1 daughter, and so on. But for instance, single moms or dads with one
child are missing, which by the way are in some places a very neglected
part of society.
And this is exactly my point: There are so many representations that every
missing one is basically an insult.

Sidenote: I think the solution for the "Family-Problem" should be M-M, F-M
and F-F combinations to represent couples, then the same again plus a girl
and a boy to represent families. Next add a man-, woman-, boy- and
girl-emoji separately, and people can represent their families without any
restriction whatsoever if they want. Plus they can express their skin
colors, and even pets can be added! Because, as with every written
language, symbols (or words) can be linked together and create a new
meaning!

Cultural Iconography
Another thing that is is worrisome is the proposed addition of a
traditional Indian piece of clothing in 12.0. This is extremely specific to
one culture, and I'm not sure if we want to open the gate for: "Which
culture is included in Unicode and which is not?". Maybe we want that!
Maybe we don't. But I think there should at least be a discussion about
additions that carry such consequences.
I know that there are tons of Chinese symbols in there already, but even
the selection-factors on the Unicode-website state, that just because there
is a lot of stuff in there from former versions, should not be a basis of
justification for future additions. For instance, the Tokyo Tower-Emoji
does not justify the Eiffel Tower-Emoji. [link]
<https://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html#Faulty_Comparison>

Emotions
And my last point, maybe even the most important one: There are currently
63 candidates for Emoji 12.0 and only one (ONE!) is an actual smiley. And I
think this category is the most important (and also the most used by far).
Because people use symbols of emotions to add meaning that cannot be easily
expressed with words to their text messages.
I loved the addition of "Face With Raised Eyebrow," "Exploding Head" and
"Face With Monocle" in Emoji 10.0 because they add value to texting!

Conclusion
So what do I mean when I say "future Emoji selection should be more
restrictive"?
1) There should be a large push on actual smileys.
2) The "Selection Factors for Exclusion" should be taken a lot more
seriously, especially for overly specific submissions. They are pretty
comprehensive but apparently just poorly enforced.
3) Very specific submissions should encourage the addition of broader
symbols that would still include the initial submission.
4) Additions that through their mere existence would exclude Symbols that
are not (currently) present should be discussed (E.g. cultural iconography)
5) Additions that are made for the sake of inclusion, which of course is
generally a good thing, should especially be checked against the four
statements above because the mindless addition of inclusive emojis can lead
to exclusivity.

Final thoughts
I really love emoji, and I think it's wonderful that everyone at Unicode
strives to make it more inclusive and progressive. But for me, it feels
like we have symbolism for the sake of symbolism. One being Emoji as a
symbol of inclusion and progress in the world, and the other one being that
Emoji still have an actual symbolic meaning.

Because to hear people say "It's so nice to finally see the introduction of
'Person in Steamy Room'" and then observe how they don't use it can't be a
good direction for future Emoji releases.

Julian ��
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20180810/95ae2abe/attachment.html>