The selection criteria for emoji are unlike those of other characters,
because their primary usage is different. If there is a particular set of
emoji characters that you would like to propose, see information at
http://unicode.org/emoji/selection.html for how to do so, and what the
selection factors are.
There is a link to that page at the top of most of the charts, such as
http://unicode.org/emoji/charts-beta/full-emoji-list.html.
Is there a way we can make that link more prominent, so that readers like
you will notice it more easily?
Mark
Mark
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Christoph Päper <
christoph.paeper_at_crissov.de> wrote:
> Are in-line pictures in reading instruction books, standing in mostly for
> nouns, considered supporting proof of existing use of proposed symbols or
> emojis?
>
> I recently realized, reading a children’s book to/with my sons, that a lot
> of the pictograms – I estimated 80% in my sample – could actually be
> represented reasonably well by existing emojis. Most of the ones that were
> missing were either very specific to the story (like the *🗼 ‘tower’ of a
> 🏰 and the *🎱 ‘cannon ball’ attached to the ⛓ of a 👻) or were closely
> related to the everyday life of a European toddler (e.g. a tricycle and a
> bike helmet). The glyphs are usually individual and specific to each book,
> especially if there are also full-page pictures in it, but I wouldn’t be
> the least surprised if a study found that the things – and it’s mostly
> things indeed – depicted in such books from different authors, publishers
> and languages came from a quite limited common vocabulary (for the most
> frequent parts at least). Different readings of the same pictogram, e.g
> ‘truck’ vs. ‘lorry’ for 🚛, are usually not a problem in this applicati!
> on.
>
> Has such research been conducted and been presented to the UTC already?
>
Received on Sun Aug 21 2016 - 09:49:24 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Aug 21 2016 - 09:49:24 CDT