[Unicode]  Unicode Emoji Home | Site Map | Search
 

Submitting Emoji Proposals

Anyone can submit a proposal for an emoji character, but the proposal needs to have all the right information for it to have a chance of being accepted.

This page describes the process of submitting a proposal, including how to submit a proposal, the selection factors that need to be addressed in each proposal, guidelines on presenting evidence of frequency, and the process and timeline for acceptance.

Not all new emoji require new characters. Thus this page also describes the process of proposing that

Please read this entire page before making a submission. Also check the Emoji List to make sure your proposal is new.

Submitting a Proposal

To submit a proposal for a new emoji, please prepare a document according to the "Form for Emoji Proposals". Your document should contain all of the sections shown in the form, and should address, as completely as possible, all of the items specified there. Before preparing your document, make sure that you have read and understood the rest of this document, especially the Selection Factors. It may also help to read some of the Example Submissions. Once you have completed your document, please follow the directions in How to Submit Proposal Documents to submit it.

Form for Emoji Proposals

Title: Proposal for New Emoji
Submitter: <name>
Date: <date>

  1. Identification. Suggested short name and keywords for the emoji, as in the Emoji List.
    1. CLDR short name
    2. CLDR keywords
  2. Images. One sample color image and one sample black&white image for each proposed emoji must be included in the proposal and in an attached zip file. These are to illustrate how each character might be displayed. The format and license must be as specified in Images.
    1. Zip File
    2. License. The proposer must certify that the images have appropriate licenses for use by the Unicode consortium, and list the type of license.
  3. Selection factors — Inclusion. A section that addresses all Selection Factors for Inclusion, and for each one provides evidence as to what degree each of the proposed characters would satisfy that factor.
    1. Compatibility
    2. Expected usage level
      1. Frequency
      2. Multiple usages
      3. Use in sequences
    3. Image distinctiveness
    4. Completeness
    5. Frequently requested
  4. Selection factors — Exclusion. A section that addresses all Selection Factors for Inclusion, and for each one provides evidence as to what degree each of the proposed characters would satisfy that factor.
    1. Overly specific
    2. Open-ended
    3. Already representable
    4. Logos, brands, UI icons, signage, specific people, deities
    5. Transient
    6. Faulty comparison
  5. Sort location. A proposed sort location for the emoji in Emoji Ordering
    1. Category (such as cat-face)
    2. Emoji it should come after in that category (such as after 🙀 WEARY CAT FACE).
  6. Other information. Any other information that would be helpful, such as design considerations for images.

A group of related emoji should be put into a single proposal, especially where the goal is to complete a set (see Completeness).

Please:

  • don’t justify the addition of emoji because they further a “cause”, no matter how worthwhile
  • don’t include specific code points (U+XXXXX) for proposed characters
  • don’t include a filled-out Proposal Summary Form.
  • don’t use this process for Proposing Existing Characters as Emoji

A proposal may be advanced despite a “cause” argument — if other factors are compelling — but will not be advanced because of it.

The committee will assign code points and fill out the Proposal Summary Form later in the process. The original proposal may then be amended to include those, as was done with the Food emoji characters example below.

The names and images for approved characters may be changed — sometimes substantially — from what is suggested in the proposal. Quite often the name is generalized, for example. The image that a vendor uses may depart substantially from what is in the proposal, such as to better fit with the “house style” for that vendor.

Example Submissions

Some useful examples of successful proposals are listed below. When looking at the older proposals it is important to keep two points in mind:

  1. New proposals must follow the form in Submitting Emoji Character Proposals. This form may have changed since earlier proposals were submitted.
  2. The UTC may accept a proposal for reasons other than those stated in the proposal, and does not necessarily endorse or consider relevant all of the proposed reasons.
Female Runner Cricket
Dumpling Broccoli
Food emoji Pie
Person meditating  


Sequences & Other Proposals

Not all new emoji require new characters. People can propose that:

The timeline for these proposals is not as long as for new characters, since existing characters can be changed to be emoji or emoji sequences added without waiting for the annual Unicode release in June. For example, Emoji v4.0 added many new emoji in November 2016.

Making Existing Characters be Emoji

Some characters are already encoded in Unicode; they just aren’t considered emoji (that is, they don’t have emoji properties). These include the chess characters, for example. See the ExtendedPictographic set in CLDR for examples of similar characters.

If a proposal is accepted for recognizing an existing character as an emoji, the outcome would be a change in the Emoji property value for that character in emoji-data.txt.

New Emoji Sequences

Similarly, new sequences can be proposed for addition. These include:

  • Making a valid sequence be RGI, such as adding a subdivision flag (such as for California), or a new ZWJ sequence such as for a pirate flag. Accepting that proposal would result in changes to the data files emoji-sequences.txt or emoji-zwj-sequences.txt.
  • Making an invalid sequence be valid, such as allowing for a skin-tone modifer to apply to a character that it couldn't before. Accepting that proposal would result in a change to the Unicode Emoji specification.

Submission Form Mods

The submission form is almost the same as the Form for Emoji Proposals, but with the following changes.

The <TITLE> is be changed to one of

  • Proposal for Changing Characters to Emoji
  • Proposal for New RGI Emoji Sequences
  • Proposal for New Valid Emoji Sequences

The code points of the characters or sequences to be affected must be listed in a new item 1.C Code Points.

Selection factors H and I are not applicable, and should be marked with N/A.


Selection Factors

There are two kinds of selection factors. Some weigh in favor of encoding the emoji, and some against. These are listed in the sections below.

Selection Factors for Inclusion

Initially, the Unicode emoji characters were selected primarily on the basis of compatibility. The selection factors have been broadened to include other factors; here are the factors that the Emoji subcommittee now considers when assessing possible new emoji. None of these factors alone determine eligibility or priority: all of the factors together are taken into consideration. The most important factors for inclusion are compatibility and expected usage level.

  1. Compatibility. Are these needed for compatibility with high-use emoji in existing systems, such as Snapchat, Twitter, or QQ?
    • For example, 🙄 FACE WITH ROLLING EYES.
    • There are many cases where characters are or have been added for compatibility alone, such as 🆕 SQUARED NEW, or 👷 CONSTRUCTION WORKER. In such cases, this is an overriding factor.
  2. Expected usage level. (See questions below) Measures that can be presented as evidence include the following:
    1. Frequency. Is there a high expected frequency of use?
      • This is the most important factor for inclusion.
      • There should be high expected usage worldwide, or high expected usage within a  very large user community. For example, a community can be geographic, such as users in Latin America or users in Southeast Asia.
    2. Multiple usages. Does the candidate emoji have notable metaphorical references or symbolism?
      • For example, 🐱 SHARK is not necessarily only the animal, but also used for a huckster, in jumping the shark, loan shark, etc. The 🐱 CAT FACE, 🐷 PIG FACE, or 🐰 RABBIT FACE may be used to evoke positive feelings, while 🕷 SPIDER may used to evoke negative feelings.
      • References for use as an archetype, metaphorical use, and symbolism should be supplied.
    3. Use in sequences. Can the candidate be used in sequences?
      • For example, objects associated with professions or activities are of interest for use in sequences: either combined with a person using a ZWJ, or just in linear sequence.
    4. Breaking new ground. Does the character represent something that is new and different?
      • More weight is given to emoji that that that convey concepts that are not simply variants of concepts conveyed by existing emoji or sequences of existing emoji.
      • For example, it would be better to proposal an emoji for a new kind of animal rather than an emoji for a new breed of dog.
  3. Image distinctiveness. Is there a clearly recognizable image of a physical object that could serve as a paradigm, one that would be distinct enough from other emoji?
    • People should be able to recognize what object an image for the emoji represents, even at small sizes. For example, CASSOULET or STEW probably couldn’t be easily distinguished from 🍲 POT OF FOOD.
    • Simple words (“NEW”) or abstract symbols (“∰”) would not qualify as emoji.
    • Note that objects often may represent activities or modifiers, such as 😢CRYING FACE for crying or 🏃 RUNNER for running.
  4. Completeness. Does the proposed pictograph fill a gap in existing types of emoji?
    • In Unicode 8.0, for example, five emoji were added to complete the zodiac, including 🦂 SCORPION.
    • This factor has a small weight, compared to other counterfailing factors, especially low expected frequency.
    • The goal is iconic representation of large categories, not completeness in the sense of filling out the categories of a scientific or taxonomic classification system. Proposals should not attempt to make distinctions that are too narrow. For example, there are emoji for hearts typically drawn as purple, blue, green, yellow, red, …; there is no need for finer gradations of color, like sienna.
  5. Frequently requested. Is it often requested of the Unicode Consortium, or of Unicode member companies?
    • For example, 🌭 HOT DOG or 🦄 UNICORN.
    • Petitions are only considered as possible indications of potential frequency of usage, among the other selection factors.
    • Citations of petition results should provide evidence as to how reliable the petition mechanism is (in terms of preventing duplicates or robovotes) and account to what extent the results could be skewed by commercial promotion of the petition.
    • There is a misperception that such petitions play a large role in selecting emoji. For example, the commercial petitions for 🌮 TACO played no part in its selection, because there was no evidence of reliability.

Selection Factors for Exclusion

  1. Overly specific. Is the proposed character overly specific?
    • For example, 🍣 SUSHI represents sushi in general, although images frequently show a specific type, such as Maguro. Adding SABA, HAMACHI, SAKE, AMAEBI and others would be overly specific.
  2. Open-ended. Is it just one of many, with no special reason to favor it over others of that type?
  3. Already representable. Can the concept be represented by another emoji or sequence?
    • For example, a crying baby can already be represented by 😢👶 CRYING FACE + BABY
    • A building associated with a particular religion might be represented by a 🛐 PLACE OF WORSHIP emoji followed by a one of the many religious symbols in Unicode.
    • Halloween could be represented by either just 🎃 JACK-O-LANTERN, or a sequence of  🎃👻 JACK-O-LANTERN + GHOST.
    • Note: An image combining two or more other emoji can be represented by an emoji zwj sequence. See examples. Such images are already representable, and do not have to be approved by the Unicode Consortium. They can be requested of vendors.
  4. Logos, brands, UI icons, signage, specific people, deities. Are the images unsuitable for encoding as characters?
    • Images such as company logos, or those showing company brands as part or all of the image, or images of products strongly associated with a particular brand.
    • UI icons such as Material Design Icons, Winjs Icons, or Font Awesome Icons, which are often discarded or modified to meet evolving UI needs
    • Signage such as exit-sign. See also Slate’s The Big Red Word vs. the Little Green Man
      • Note that symbols used in signage or user interfaces may be encoded in Unicode for reasons unconnected with their use as emoji.
    • Specific people, whether historic or living
    • Deities
  5. Transient. Is the expected level of usage likely to continue into the future, or would it just be a fad?
    • Transient or faddish symbols are poor candidates for encoding.
  6. Faulty comparison. Are proposals being justified primarily by being similar to (or more important than) existing compatibility emoji?
    • Many emoji were added only for compatibility, and would not have been added otherwise. Their existence does not justify proposals for emoji like them. For example:
    • The emoji 🆕 does not justify adding an emoji for ‘OLD’, or an emoji for ‘NEU’ (German)
    • The emoji {🐶 🐕} do not justify additional front vs full-body views of the same animal
    • The emoji {🐕 🐩} or {🐪 🐫} do not justify adding different varieties of the same kind of animal
    • Four different mailboxes {📫 📪 📬 📭} do not justify adding adding your favorite “more important than a mailbox” emoji.

Before approving as candidates or adding to a release of Unicode, other considerations are taken into account. See UTC Consideration.


Evidence of Frequency

Different techiques can be used as evidence that the proposed emoji character is likely to be be widely used. The basic goal is to establish the expected frequency of usage compared to a commonly-used emoji of the same type. Thus for a proposed 🌭 HOT DOG emoji, one can compare against an existing emoji for another food item, 🍔 HAMBURGER. The relative frequency is the important information.

In the case of emoji proposed on the basis of (A) Compatibility, the relative frequency of usage on the respective platform should be supplied. If hard data cannot be supplied, a estimate with rationale should be provided.

Here are some examples of services you can use. These are not the only methods that can be used as evidence of expected frequency — any objective data can be used. Proposals should not “cherry-pick”, however. That is, don't pick only the data that favors the proposed character—present all the available evidence you can find.

Google Trends

  • Compare related terms using “Image Search”
  • Example: search hot dog vs hamburger, to get two figures (eg, 55 and 66), and divide to get 83%

Instagram

  • Compare related items with separate searches for hashtagged items
  • Example: perform two searchs, for hotdog and then hamburger, to get two figures (eg, 1.3M and 1M), and divide to get 130%

Youtube

  • Compare related items with separate searches
  • Example: perform two searchs, for raccoon and then zebra, to get two figures (eg, 1.9M and 3.4M), and divide to get 55%

Remember to try related words, both “burger” and “hamburger", for example. It may also be useful to try different languages, such as “paella” vs “hamburguesa”.

In particular, when the English word has multiple meanings (like “fly” as a noun or as a verb), some measures must be taken to correct for that. Some possibilities are to use a different language or (if the program allows it) filtering by topic.

Please contact us if you have other suggestions for other ways to get pertinent frequency data about expected emoji usage.


Images

Images should be supplied in a 'flat' zip file (without internal folders).

Images must be in PNG format with dimensions of 72x72 pixels. The image should extend to the sides of the cell (ie, no extra padding). Outside of the main image it should be transparent. Black & white images must be suitable for fonts. Grayscale is not acceptable. Examples:

✅  color ✅  black & white ❌  grayscale

The file names must have the following format: <vendor>_<hex>.png

  • <vendor> is a lowercase word of the form [a-z]+.
    • For Unicode members, it is based on a company or product name, such as adobe, android, apple, emojination, emojione, emojipedia, emojixpress, fb, fbm, samsung, twitter, and windows.
    • For others, it is proposed.
  • <hex> is a lowercase hex value of the form [0-9a-f]{4-5}(_[0-9a-f]{4-5})*.
    • For sequences of one or more existing emoji characters, <hex> should use the lowercase value of the code points, with all “fe0f” values removed.
    • For a proposed character, it should be a lowercase value in the range e000-efff; when an official code point is assigned, the file name will be updated to use that instead.

Examples:

proposed_e000.png
android_1f004.png — not android_1F004.png
apple_002a_20e3.png
apple_1f915.png
facebook_2639.png — not facebook_2639_fe0f.png
windows_1f6b6_1f3fb.png

The images supplied for deployed (or in-development) emoji should represent how the system works in practice. For example, if a system uses the same glyph for multiple emoji, then the image should be supplied once for each emoji. This currently occurs on some systems with:

The images must have appropriate licenses so they can be used on the Unicode site, such as “public domain”, “licensed for non-commercial use”, “free to share and use”, or equivalent (CC: CC0, or BY*). If you have the rights to the image, state that it meets those conditions, otherwise include a link to a page indicating that the license for the image does meet those conditions.

Image Search (or equivalent) can be useful for finding suitable images for proposed characters.

On Bing, choose Type>Clipart

On Google, choose Search Tools>Type>Clipart

You can try filtering for usage rights or license. Sometimes that’s too narrow, and you can find more images with a general search, clicking through to determine whether the license is suitable.


Process and Timeline

The following describes the process and approximate timeline for new emoji characters.

Initial Proposal

  1. Submitter reviews Submitting a Proposal (especially the examples), and writes up a proposal.
    • To be considered for inclusion in the release of the Unicode Standard for 2018, proposals must be submitted before July 1, 2017. Proposals should be submitted as early as possible, however, to allow time for modifications as described below.
    • The Unicode standard release is in the process of being shifted from June each year to early March of that year, to allow more time for implementers to incorporate it in their releases. The deadline in 2018 for emoji proposal submissions for new characters has thus been moved up from September 15, 2017.
  2. The proposal is submitted to the Unicode Consortium and then referred to the Emoji subcommittee, which meets weekly by phone. However, there is typically a very full agenda, and it can take up to 30 days (and sometimes longer) for the initial review of a new proposal.
  3. Not every proposal will be forwarded to the UTC for consideration. Some proposals that clearly do not meet the selection critieria, such as proposals to add emoji characters representing logos, specific persons, or deities, are excluded, and the author is informed that the proposal is declined.
  4. Other proposals typically need improvements and clarifications, so the author is informed of problems and asked to make corrections.
  5. Other proposals may be incorporated into a larger list of related characters (such as Foods, or Sports) that is being developed by the emoji subcommittee. Recommendations for consideration of the top characters on these lists is submitted to the UTC. (This is typically a small percentage of each list.)
  6. Once the proposal is well-formed, and has made a reasonably strong case for a new emoji character, then the emoji subcommittee submits it to the UTC. Submission of a proposal to the UTC does not mean that the proposal has been recommended by the ESC. The submission is simply to notify the UTC of a well-formed proposal.

UTC Consideration

  1. The UTC has a quarterly week-long meeting, typically held in the middle of each quarter. Consideration of proposals to add emoji characters is only a portion of the full UTC agenda for each meeting.
  2. Before each UTC meeting, the ESC produces a list of the recommended proposals.
  3. Proposals are discussed, and may be accepted as candidates, or be declined, or returned for more work. Often it takes more than one UTC meeting to get consensus.
    1. Compared to most other characters in Unicode, there is greater public awareness of new emoji characters, and a high expectation of support for them from major platform vendors (such as Android, iOS, Windows, Twitter, and Facebook). Support from major platform vendors is needed to ensure wide distribution of the proposed emoji. Although there is no specific numerical criterion for new emoji use, the goal is usage on the order of millions of daily active users for each new emoji, rather than merely thousands.
    2. Thus in addition to the selection factors, before approving a new emoji character the Unicode Technical Committee needs to expect wide deployment: that major vendors of emoji would plan to include the proposed character into very widely deployed fonts and input methods (keyboards / palettes / speech). Support for more than about 50–100 new emoji a year is problematic for vendors. The cost and complexity to support new emoji characters is much higher than for most other Unicode characters, especially on devices with limited memory.
    3. The committee balances the choices of emoji in a given set of candidates or release. For example, rather than 15 different breeds of dogs, the committee might choose to have some faces, some clothing, other animals, food items, transport items, and sports.
  4. Those proposals that are provisionally accepted by the UTC as candidates are added as Provisional Candidates, with placeholder code points such as X00002.
  5. At the Q3 UTC meeting each year, a decision is made about which of the candidates to advance to Draft Candidates for encoding in the following year’s Unicode release. The candidate pool includes both the Provisional Candidates and proposals processed by the ESC between the Q2 and Q3 UTC meetings.
  6. At the Q1 UTC meeting the subsequent year, a final determination is made as to the emoji characters that are to be in that year’s release. This list constitutes the Final Candidates for the release.

Processing Final Candidates

  1. Code points are assigned to Final Candidates. The emoji property values of the new characters are determined and added to the beta property data files for the next version of Emoji.
  2. Draft short names, keywords, and sort order are added to the beta of the upcoming version of CLDR.
  3. The Unicode character properties of the characters are specified and appear in the beta property data files for the next release of the Unicode Standard.
  4. Implementers have the opportunity to make sure that those properties are correct, and will not cause problems.
  5. After the review of the beta emoji properties is finished, the UTC publishes the final repertoire and emoji property values for that version of Unicode Emoji. This may happen before a version of Unicode is published. Vendors can then start the process of implementation: image design, fonts, keyboards, parsing, segmentation, etc.
  6. After the period for the beta review closes, the UTC determines the final code points and properties, so that the characters are ready for deployment.
  7. The new emoji characters are published in a version of Unicode at the end of June. Once published, they are a permanent part of the standard. Information about them is added to Full Emoji List.
  8. Unicode member companies may often start preparing fonts, keyboards, and other supporting software for the new emoji characters somewhat before the release, depending on their release schedule.

Sample Timeline

The following is a sample timeline for a typical successful proposal.

Date Description
Y1 Q1 A proposal for 5 emoji characters is submitted to Unicode and referred to the Emoji subcommittee (ESC). The proposal goes through three revisions, and is then accepted by the Emoji subcommittee for forwarding to the UTC.
Y1 Q2 The UTC adds 4 of the characters as Provisional Candidates, declining one of the characters.
Y1 Q3 The UTC reviews the ESC’s overall prioritized list for emoji for the next year, possibly making changes, and makes 3 of these characters be Draft Candidates.
Y1 Q4 CLDR begins translation of the Emoji names and keywords, and determines a sort order.
Y2 Q1 After further review, one of the characters is removed. The rest are advanced to Final Candidate status. The draft Unicode Character Properties are completed for the remaining 2 emoji characters, and included in the beta of Unicode version X. CLDR removes the declined characters, and finalizes the names, keywords, and sort order. Vendors begin design.
Y2 Q2 The 2 approved characters are published in Unicode version X at the end of the quarter, and areincluded in the final data files.
Y2 Q2+ Vendors begin to support the 2 new characters.

Normally proposals need to be submitted to the Emoji subcommittee at least a year before they can appear in a Unicode release.


Process for Proposed Emoji Sequences

The process is simpler for emoji sequences and other proposals that don't require new characters.

  1. If the proposal is not well-formed, the emoji subcommittee responds to the proposer with suggestions for fixing, as is done for new emoji character proposals.
  2. Once a proposal is well-formed, the emoji subcommittee submits the proposal to the UTC to bring it to the attention of vendors.
  3. For proposals to make valid sequences be RGI: The emoji subcommittee prepares a summary document for consideration by major vendors.
  4. For proposals to add tag sequences or change emoji properties (such as to make an existing character be emoji): The UTC decides whether or not to change the next version of UTR #51, Unicode Emoji and/or associated emoji data.