Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 07:54:07 CST

  • Next message: Ruszlan Gaszanov: "RE: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy"

    Adam Twardoch <list dot adam at twardoch dot com> wrote:

    > They are multi-colored? So what. The practice of putting red vowel
    > marks over black Arabic writing has existed for centuries. They're
    > animated? So what, the technology permits it.

    Sorry, some people are still rumored to use an antiquated technology
    called "printing." When black-and-white printing is considered as
    obsolete as black-and-white television, the color problem will be
    solved. But I don't see how you get ink on paper to dance around,
    unless alcohol is involved.

    > But today, I don't see any difference between "--", ":)" and ":P" --
    > they are all imperfect ASCII representations of more elaborate signs.
    > "--" stands for "—", ":)" stands for "☺" and the proper representation
    > of ":P" is not yet encoded.
    > Emoji are not non-text signs, they are non-verbal signs, just like the
    > traditional punctuation signs. I see no reason why they should not be
    > encoded.

    What about the pictures of pigs and cactus and love hotels and patrol
    cars with revolving light? Asmus is right: emoji (as a group) are not
    the same as emoticons. Let's ignore, for the moment, the emoji that
    actually are emoticons, the ones that have traditionally been
    represented by some form of sideways, one-line ASCII art, and talk about
    things like the pigs and cactus.

    Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14  ˆ

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 07:55:23 CST