Request for immediate changes to PERSON WITH WHITE CANE (etc) emoji

[Sai]

> The Unicode Consortium provides reference glyphs, but they are not
normative; they do not dictate to font vendors exactly how a character must
be rendered. This is particularly true for emoji which are implemented as
ZWJ sequences, such as the PERSON WITH CANE emoji under discussion here.

While this may be technically correct in a legalistic or documentation
sense, it is not really accurate to say there's no normative content.

An implementer is not going to depict WHITE CANE + ZWJ + PERSON as someone
riding the cane like a witch broom. Nor, most likely, to depict them even
just standing with cane in vertical rest position.

There is inherent normative value in the reference glyphs. Otherwise you
wouldn't have one. That's kinda the point of a "reference" item — that it
depicts a standard, normal version of the thing, which can be elaborated on
with intentional artistic (etc) variation.

And this ZWJ sequence is in the official table I cited.

> As such, Sai’s message is only a call for implementers to change the
glyphs in their fonts. The Unicode Consortium has no action item here,
urgent or otherwise, because their only reference glyph

I pointed to the reference ZWJ glyphs.

Also, given this response, I will add another structural request:

5. Unicode: Where the name alone is insufficient for implementers to make
an accurate implementation, provide specifications of code points and
sequences.

In particular, do so here.


> the cane by itself, which is not incorrect with a strap.

You did not understand my post.

It IS incorrect to depict a cane as having a strap. No blind cane has a
walking stick type strap; this is simply not a thing. (There are support
canes which get white taping because intersectional disabilities, like
mine, but those are semantically not the same object.)

This is a misinterpretation by implementers, and it seems by you also. A
cane has a structural loop of bungee cord that runs from the tip (which
typically has a hook for this, a stem smaller than the cane's inner
diameter which goes inside the cane section, and a larger body which stays
outside), all the way through the cane, out a hole in the centre of the
handle section, where it is knotted off at the correct tension and given an
additional knotted loop to contain the bundle for a collapsed sectional
cane.

The bungee loop is not a strap. In particular it is not a wrist strap. It
is never wide like a wrist strap, only round cord. It never pierces the
handle like a hiking pole, only comes out the tip (if present at all).
Depiction of it as a strap is factually wrong. It is semantic error,
confusion for a walking stick, which is likewise the reason for essentially
all of the specific inaccuracies I pointed out.

> (according to Sai)

You don't need to take my word for it. If you tried even a minimum amount
you would verify everything I said.

Rather than being snide and dismissive, you could spend one minute on
Google, or ambutech.com, to verify what I said as to the physical design.
It's not hard to find close up photos.

You could spend sightly more time to look at O&M materials, or talking to
literally any well trained blind person (or poorly trained one who's used
it long enough to have learned the hard way), to verify what I said about
the use.

Here's a canonical reference for you
https://nfb.org/sites/nfb.org/files/images/nfb/publications/books/cfcane/cane04.htm

>> Many canes have a loop of chain or string through the handle which is
for the purpose of hanging up the cane when it is not in use. Do not put
your hand through the loop when you are walking. If something should happen
to pull the cane out of your hand, it is better to drop the cane than to be
pulled down with it.


> It is unfortunate if we have gotten to the point where the cartoon
representation of a human figure in some vendor’s emoji font can be viewed
as a safety hazard in and of itself.

It is unfortunate that we have stayed at the point where people are utterly
oblivious and dismissive of genuine harms caused to disabled people, both
in development without us to begin with, and when pointed out explicitly.

If you disagree with me that it's a safety hazard to use a cane in this
way, do so directly. Find something that considers the question and says
it's a good idea, or even neutral, for a blind person to put their hand
through a cane's bungee loop.

If you disagree with me that such depictions of dangerous use are likely to
cause real world dangerous use, say why depicting people doing so by
default would not give the impression that that's correct usage and thereby
cause people to do it.

Otherwise, this is just ignorant snark.

🧑‍🦯 is a depiction of genuinely dangerous real world usage of a critical
tool. It's not 🤯 which is obviously cartoon depiction of something that
doesn't happen. And it's not 🔫 either; it's not a question of what
messages people communicate.

👨‍🔬 depicts a chemist… wearing safety glasses and a lab coat when
handling chemicals, as they should. People seeing it will, therefore, be
implicitly nudged to consider that as normative behaviour, and by having
that as a norm, they will be more likely to wear safety glasses and lab
coats when doing chemistry.

👷 depicts a construction worker… wearing a hard hat and high-viz vest.

🧑‍🦯 is like depicting a chemist just casually pouring a vial of gaseous
chemicals with no safety precautions, mad hatter style… as the default
standard way of depicting a chemist. Ditto for construction. Etc.

This is depicting, as plainly normative rather than as Tom & Jerry style
obvious comedy, actually dangerous usage of a real life thing (cane use)
based on real life misconceptions held by people who are not adequately
trained against it. I've personally trained actual blind people newly using
a cane who did this exact thing because they had the same misconception. I
know others who have been physically injured because they did this. It
being in the standard depiction will cause others to have the same idea. I
was not exaggerating when I said that this can cause actual real world
physical injury.

Sincerely,
Sai
President, Fiat Fiendum, Inc., a 501(c)(3)

Sent from my mobile phone; please excuse the concision, typos, and
autocorrect errors.

On Fri, 7 Jun 2024, 06:07 Doug Ewell, <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:

> Sai wrote:
>
> > Dear Unicode Consortium and implementers,
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > In nearly all implementations listed at
> > https://emojis.wiki/person-with-white-cane/ , these are depicted with
> > the person having their hand through the cane's bungee loop as if it
> > were a wrist strap.
> >
> > This is both wrong and, as an implicit norm/suggestion, it is
> > dangerous misinformation that may cause real world fatalities to cane
> > users.
>
> The Unicode Consortium provides reference glyphs, but they are not
> normative; they do not dictate to font vendors exactly how a character must
> be rendered. This is particularly true for emoji which are implemented as
> ZWJ sequences, such as the PERSON WITH CANE emoji under discussion here.
>
> As such, Sai’s message is only a call for implementers to change the
> glyphs in their fonts. The Unicode Consortium has no action item here,
> urgent or otherwise, because their only reference glyph is of the cane by
> itself, which (according to Sai) is not incorrect with a strap.
>
> It is unfortunate if we have gotten to the point where the cartoon
> representation of a human figure in some vendor’s emoji font can be viewed
> as a safety hazard in and of itself.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20240608/1d5aff1c/attachment.htm>