Thoughts on Emoji Selection Process

[Charlotte Buff via Unicode]

[James Kass wrote:]
> Nobody's perfect.  We all have our strengths and weaknesses; it's part
> of the human condition.  Although alienating people can bring
> considerable short-term satisfaction, in the long run building bridges
> trumps building walls.

I would be inclined to agree with you, if it weren’t for the fact that I
have been dealing with the ESC for two years now. I used to be nice and
diplomatic, back when I was still convinced that these people were
genuinely interested in developing a decent product. Back when I still
thought that they were actually trying to do good, but just didn’t quite
know how.

Do you want to know what “building bridges” achieved? Bloody nothing. They
ignored literally every single word I had written and marched onward
regardless.

I am sick of sugarcoating their flaws. They mess up again and again and
again, and they refuse to mend or even acknowledge their mistakes. If they
can’t deal with criticism straight to their faces then they shouldn’t be in
these positions.

People like Andrew West, Michael Everson, Cristoph Päper, Eduardo Marín
Silva, and even myself sacrifice their time to develop and document
detailled solutions to many problems the ESC has created, but they simply
don’t care. They are too busy churning out these stupid pictographs year
after year because that’s what gives them publicity. Who cares that 80% of
the emoji standard is horribly broken? What could the Emoji Subcommittee
possibly do about that?

2018-08-11 23:58 GMT+02:00 James Kass <jameskasskrv at gmail.com>:

> Charlotte Buff wrote,
>
> ⇒ Mark Davis hates me already for rightfully calling
> ⇒ out his many shortcomings, so I might as well say it
> ⇒ like it is and alienate the rest of the ESC as well.
>
> Nobody's perfect.  We all have our strengths and weaknesses; it's part
> of the human condition.  Although alienating people can bring
> considerable short-term satisfaction, in the long run building bridges
> trumps building walls.
>
> Conventional character encoding concerns may well be of secondary
> importance with respect to emoji.  The driving force may have more to
> do with sales and marketing.  In this regard, emoji are "special".
> Hence, if we approach emoji encoding issues in the traditional manner,
> ESC decisions might appear baffling or unreasonable.  But if we
> broaden our horizons and allow that sales and marketing concerns are a
> factor, we might gain a little clarity and a better understanding.
>
> Just sayin'.  ☺
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20180812/cb47872f/attachment.html>