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

[Charlotte Eiffel Lilith Buff]

Taking one step back, please note that you have submitted your request to
the Unicode mailing list, which is just a place for random people to
discuss miscellaneous Unicode topics. Nothing that happens here is going to
affect the development or implementation of the Unicode Standard.

Am Sa., 8. Juni 2024 um 11:41 Uhr schrieb Sai via Unicode <
unicode at corp.unicode.org>:

> > 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/20240608/9034760c/attachment-0001.htm>