Accumulated Feedback on PRI #387

This page is a compilation of formal public feedback received so far. See Feedback for further information on this issue, how to discuss it, and how to provide feedback.

Date/Time: Sat Sep 22 18:02:34 CDT 2018
Name: Scott Sasaki
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: DEAF PERSON emoji draft candidate

In response to proposal L2/18‑229.

I fully support inclusion in emoji, however I believe that this emoji is
mislabeled and will be confusing right from the start.

Deaf people look exactly the same as hearing people, therefore the CLDR
Short name of "DEAF PERSON" is misleading.

The example illustration provided by Apple depicts a person pointing at
their *eye*. The proposal does not state if that was intended or a mistake.
Clarification should be made. Additionally, the CLDR shortname should be
adjusted to reflect the intended subject of the pointing.

The proposal states "Yes, there are currently no emoji that can be used to
depict deafness or deaf people. " To which I counter with 👂🚫, the old ASL
sign for DEAF was "EAR CLOSED". (Person points to their ear with index
finger, then uses two hands palm facing outward and close together like a
sliding gate.)

The point above is also in response to section H "Can the concept be
represented by another emoji or sequence".

Thank you,
Scott Sasaki

Date/Time: Wed Sep 26 23:34:42 CDT 2018
Name: Eduardo Marín Silva
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: Name of proposed character: 1F9CF

The current name for this emoji is DEAF PERSON, which fails on two fronts.
One, it is not general enough, and two it can be seen as discriminatory.
Strictly speaking, only mute people must use sign language, since there are
deaf people that can talk, so this excludes people who are mute but not
deaf. The more general name would be PERSON USING SIGN LANGUAGE.

Date/Time: Tue Oct 23 17:36:07 CDT 2018
Name: Kent Karlsson
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: emoji 12.0 comments

62	X1FA79	🩹	—	adhesive bandage	bandage

Firstly, bandaids are often "skin colored" (even though that is often gets a
very limited interpretation). So skin color modifiers would be appropriate,
even though not technically representing skin. See for instance

Secondly, some bandaids are "fun colored", e.g. red or blue or with little
drawings on them (whatever is popular) (or plain white or mostly
transparent, but that does not show well in an emoji); especially those
intended for children. See for instance
/for-kids. Not sure how to best handle (some!) such modifications.

(There are many other variations of bandaids, but cannot cover them all in emoji...)

	🥱	—	yawning face	bored | tired | yawn

This one should have skin color variations; it does not seem to have that
(according to as
of 24/10).

1F91D	🤝	➕	handshake	agreement | hand | handshake | meeting | shake
➕ 5 char & skin

Eeh, there are two (depicted) hands from two different persons; they may
have different skin colour; but IIUC this proposal only covers that the two
have the same skin colour. That seems to be a big mistake.

Date/Time: Sun Nov 18 11:50:28 CST 2018
Name: Charlotte Buff
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: PRI #387: Collation changes

I propose tweaking the collation and categorisation of several emoji:

• MECHANICAL LEG should be sorted after LEG rather than before it in order
to be consistent with FLEXED BICEPS and MECHANICAL ARM.

• Hair components should either not be considered “main” emoji at all since
they cannot be used on their own, or other emoji components like
Fitzpatrick modifiers should be added to the table as well to stay

• ORANGUTAN should be sorted close to the other primates MONKEY and GORILLA.

• COW should be sorted directly following COW FACE as with other animal

• AVOCADO and AUBERGINE are fruit, so they should be in the ‘food-fruit’
category rather than ‘food-vegetable’.

• MILKY WAY is potentially better placed in the ‘sky & weather’ category
among the various stars.

• The ordering of the coloured squares and circles is messy. The following
corrections need to be made to achieve the same order as the coloured

  ⁃ The medium-small squares need to be switched around, as do the small squares. 
	Black should be before white in all cases.

Date/Time: Tue Dec 4 07:29:36 CST 2018
Name: Christoph Päper
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: PRI387: Ballet emoji

Rüdiger Landmann, in his original proposal [L2/18-113] that resulted in the
Unicode 12.0 beta Candidate Emoji [X+1FA70] BALLET SHOES, requested a "pair
of ballet shoes (pointe shoes)" to represent "ballet in a more abstract and
general sense", but also female (ballerina) and male ballet dancer emojis.
The original recommendations by the Emoji Subcommittee (ESC) for the 2018-Q2
UTC [L2/18-143] omitted the people and included only "Ballet Shoes" with a
note saying "But as clothing (no visible skin): BALLET SHOES", which was
changed in the first revision [L2/18-143r] to "Originally proposed with
visible feet, but changed to just the clothing." and remained so in the
final, second revision [L2/18-143r2].

The decision by the ESC to concentrate on the clothing emoji was obviously
founded in the fact that people emojis are more "expensive" to implement for
vendors, because they almost always require 2 or 3 gender and 6 skin-tone
variants, which increase file size and clutter character picker user
interfaces. The pseudo-statistical metrics provided in the proposal (as
required by the ESC process) hold true for any kind of Ballet emoji. The
proposal, dated 31 March 2018, did not consider the Unicode 11.0 emoji 🥿
U+1F97F FLAT SHOE at all, which was in late beta state at the time, but only
discusses 💃 U+1F483, 🕺 U+1F57A, 🙆 U+1F646 and 👯 U+1F46F in section H.

I agree with the decision to encode an emoji to represent ballet and I also
agree with the decision to focus on a clothing emoji for this. The ESC
process should, however, have resulted in rejecting a Ballet Shoe or Ballet
Shoes emoji because it is not sufficiently distinct from the now existing
Flat Shoe emoji. (This was original referred to as WOMANS FLAT SHOE, see the
critique in [L2/17-296] which actually included BALLET SHOE as a suggested
alternative name). An even more characteristic and iconic, though -- as is
appropriate for pictographs -- borderline stereotypical piece of clothing
associated with ballet is the tutu dress, even if it is mostly worn only by
female dancers.

I therefore propose to change the UCS name of X+1FA70 from BALLET SHOES to
TUTU DRESS and to update the sample glyph accordingly. The purpose remains
the same and the semantics are hardly altered when the visuals and the
designation change.

If my proposal is rejected for whichever reason, I reiterate my previous
critique uttered for 🧤 U+1F9E4 GLOVES and 🧦 U+1F9E6 SOCKS: pictographic
emojis should always be encode as single items even if they usually come in
(chiral) pairs, which could then be encoded as a simple and intuitive ZWJ
sequence if deemed necessary. This is repeating and agreeing with the
concern already raised by Michael Everson [L2/18-234 = N5008]. Someone could
even make a point in favor of just encoding _Ballet Shoes_ as the ZWJ
sequence U+1F97F+200D+1F97F, but I think that would be misguided.

PS: On a different but slightly related note, the UTC should also consider
to change the CLDR name for 💃 U+1F483 to _Classical Dancer_ or _Ballroom
Dancer_ and for 🕺 U+1F57A to _Disco Dancer_, while, at the same time,
introducing gender variants for both emojis. Others might argue that _Dancer
Wearing a Dress_ and _Dancer Wearing a Suit_ would be more inclusive.

[U+1F97F]: "🥿"
[L2/18‑113]: "Proposal to add new emoji to represent ballet (2018-03-31)"
[L2/18-143]: "ESC Recommendations for 2018Q2 UTC (2018-04-27)"
[L2/18-143r]: "ESC Recommendations for 2018Q2 UTC (2018-05-01)"
[L2/18-143r2]: "ESC Recommendations for 2018Q2 UTC (2018­-05-­03)"
[L2/18-234 = N5008]: "Feedback on draft candidates fore Emoji 12.0 (L2/18-143R2) by Michael Everson (2018-07-18)"

Date/Time: Tue Dec 4 07:45:29 CST 2018
Name: Christoph Päper
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: PRI387: Blood Drop emoji

The Red Heart emoji is made from ❤ U+2764 HEAVY BLACK HEART (followed by
VS-16 U+FE0F). There is accordingly no obvious reason why the proposed and
drafted Blood Drop emoji, which I agree is useful, should acquire a new code
point instead of reusing 🌢 U+1F322 BLACK DROPLET, to become the reddish
counterpart to the bluish 💧 U+1F4A7 DROPLET used for water, tear, sweat.

Date/Time: Tue Jan 1 07:25:01 CST 2019
Name: WANG Yifan
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: On PRI #387: X1F9CF DEAF PERSON

Emoji 12.0 Beta contains a proposed emoji at X1F9CF under category "person-
gesture", labeled "deaf person", whose image resembles the word form "deaf"
in American Sign Language (ASL), by extension in French Sign family, and
International Sign.

I have serious concerns about the planned implementation of this emoji.
According to the original proposal, L2/18-229R, the developers seem to want
to have a universal emoji iconizes the Deaf by depicting the sign form for
it. However, the idea is defective, both in theory and in practice.

The theoretical defect is that, of course, not all sign languages share the
same form. They are not just superficially different, but inherently. Major
SL families in modern world are independently developed among network of
deaf schools in industrialized countries[1]. Although there is International
Sign, its position is somewhat like Esperanto rather than the real unified
world SL. Thus choosing such an universal symbol based on a sign is just
like an attempt, say, to choose a character from a certain script as the
universal symbol for the concept "writing": you could argue for Latin A
because it has widest acceptance and strong historical background; or you
could support Chinese 字 as it exactly means that, and so on; but any of them
could be rightfully universal?


The practical difficulty is much more straightforward. The given image can
be not only foreign but even misleading in some SLs. Though the word "deaf"
in major SLs tends to involve reference to ear, it is rather pictographic
association, that have something to do with "ear", not guaranteeing a
particular handshape always stands for "deaf".

Concretely speaking:
- In Chinese SL one-finger pointing just means "ear"[2]; "deaf" needs two[3].
- It is also "ear" in South African SL[4]; "deaf" needs two fingers.
- In Japanese SL, it is close to one-hand representation of "hearing" (i.e. non-deafness)[5], 
	as well as in Korea[6] and Taiwan[7]. I heard (not literally) the other time that JSL 
	speakers consider these ASL words look "the other way round": their "deaf" looks 
	"hearing"; their "hearing" looks "signing".
- It exactly matches "hearing" in British[8], Australian[9], and New Zealand SL; "deaf" needs two fingers.
- It matches "hearing ability" in Russian SL[10].
- In Vietnam, several lineages of SL coexist. Simply pointing at ear associated with "hear" 
	in some regions[11]. Anyway, the word "deaf" must have finger hooked in most regions[12][13].
- Pointing at ear alone means "hearing" in German SL as well as several central European SLs[14].

It is quite fatal that the glyph represents the Hearing, the antonym of the
Deaf, in many parts of the world (please compare the list with the map on
[1]), which would create foreseeable confusion and go against the purpose of

[6]: (hearing ability)
[7]: "聽人" on
[8]: (note: ignore the description)

The original proposal emphasizes support from World Federation of the Deaf,
but I am suspicious of what degree of communication has been made between
them, as basic misunderstandings about sign languages have been found in the
document, especially that before revision. It's not without precedent the
consortium made haste encoding characters without sufficient advice from the
presumed user base, and caused trouble (emoji as well), so there should be
more cautious consideration dealing with languages the proposer does not
have first-hand knowledge.

Suggested solutions:

1. Change the character name

Change it to more transparent name e.g. PERSON POINTING TO NEAR-SIDE EAR,
and put annotation such as "represents 'deaf' in ..." as needed. It is safer
and opens up broad possibility for extension, but possibly ends up
registering tens of "deaf emoji".

2. Locale-based glyphs

Encode only one code point and ships with multiple glyphs that match the
local handshape according to the locale setting. It may facilitate
interoperability, but has difficulty aligning with oral language locales,
which is irrelevant to SL classification (e.g. American and British SLs are
unrelated, so you cannot fallback to "en" from "en-US" and "en-GB"; Regions
that embrace competing systems like Vietnam are problematic, maybe create
sublocales like vi-hanoi and vi-hochiminh etc?)

3. Replace the character

Replace it with more universally agreeable symbol of the Deaf, if any.