asmusf at ix.netcom.com
Thu Oct 13 23:54:54 CDT 2022
People that grew up on games are used to character editors that allow
any avatar to be assembled from building blocks. Short of a common
"avatar engine" shared across all platforms, a limited set of
emoji-legos isn't that unreasonable.
We have skin tones, male/female, some limited use of color (black + cat).
Because of their small size, emoji faces would support more
customization; it's hard to create a full character emoji on the level
of detail of a game character. So you'd be limited to less detail than
you can implement with real lego blocks. (And yes, the ones for the
heads of the little figure have removable hair (and head gear). Plus a
variety of of faces (pirate) painted on.
If that can be done in the physical world, there's no reason a subset of
that couldn't be supported in emoji rendering.
People will intuitively sense that that should be possible and thus the
pressure to innovate in that direction won't stop.
Just my $1/50.
On 10/13/2022 4:38 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
> Again, this way lieth madness. People aren't satisfied with an emoji
> for "female teacher with dark hair"; they want "TALL, THIN, female
> PHYSICS teacher with dark hair IN PRINCESS-LEIA BUNS AND A PIERCED
> EYEBROW (GOLD RING)." And if you give in on "welllllll, okay, we'll
> give in on the tall/short...," you're only encouraging them to beg for
> the rest. ("How about only a _little_ tall? How about
> broad-shouldered? small-breasted?")
> (Though my opinion isn't actually quite what that sounds like: even I
> admit that there probably *are* things that are appropriate to give in
> on, and I know we all can argue all the day long about them.)
> On 10/13/22 09:22, William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote:
>> Thank you for posting about this.
>> Could one use variation selectors with this too, so as to have a
>> default style of glasses and various styles of glasses available?
>> Or would one need to have separate styles of glasses each encoded
>> If both approaches are possible, which one would be better?
>> If it is to be encoded, and I hope it will be, it would be good to go
>> for the lot all at once. Lots of styles as glasses are in lots of
>> In my opinion it is no use just doing one and leaving the rest for
>> some future time as that is often a recipe for the rest never getting
>> If the lot is done as one grand forward leap then that is the way to
>> keep Unicode thriving.
>> William Overington
>> Thursday 13 October 2022
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode