<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">We have skin tones, male/female, some
limited use of color (black + cat).</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">If that can be done in the physical
world, there's no reason a subset of that couldn't be supported in
emoji rendering. <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">People will intuitively sense that that
should be possible and thus the pressure to innovate in that
direction won't stop.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
Just my $1/50.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">A./<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/13/2022 4:38 PM, Mark E. Shoulson
via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b21e920e-0a4b-053a-7b0e-31227fd692fa@shoulson.com">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?")
<br>
<br>
(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.)
<br>
<br>
~mark
<br>
<br>
On 10/13/22 09:22, William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Thank you for posting about this.
<br>
<br>
Could one use variation selectors with this too, so as to have a
default style of glasses and various styles of glasses
available?
<br>
<br>
Or would one need to have separate styles of glasses each
encoded separately?
<br>
<br>
If both approaches are possible, which one would be better?
<br>
<br>
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 styles.
<br>
<br>
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 done.
<br>
<br>
If the lot is done as one grand forward leap then that is the
way to keep Unicode thriving.
<br>
<br>
William Overington
<br>
<br>
Thursday 13 October 2022
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>