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

[Sai]

Where should it be better posted, that non fee paying members have access
to?

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

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

On Sat, 8 Jun 2024, 12:02 Charlotte Eiffel Lilith Buff, <
irgendeinbenutzername at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20240608/298e5f36/attachment.htm>