[joshmanders]

The consistency is that if you use a (mushroom) emoji as an icon for your stuff, users on Windows will immediately know what it is because they are aware of how the emojis on their OS work. Same with Android, iOS, etc. Not that all emojis are the same across all devices.

[lapcat]

This is less consistent than images, which are generally rendered the same on all devices. Worse, though, is the broken black boxes that appear when someone uses a newer emoji that your browser or operating system version doesn't yet support, which happens all of the time.

[boondoggle16]

Not sure why you're being so argumentative about a misunderstanding of definitions?

Users know what emoji are, full stop, and you don't have to serve images (which can be expensive). Is it perfect? No, but nothing is.

[lapcat]

> Not sure why you're being so argumentative about a misunderstanding of definitions?

There's no misunderstanding of definitions. The argument is about whether emojis are "really a win win". I don't think they are, for reasons I've explained. Specifically, with regard to needing icons for "berries and maybe more vegetables", you can already do this with small jpgs that would not take much bandwidth, and in general there's more consistency in jpg support across different software then there is in emoji support.

Waiting for the Unicode committee to add emoji for every possible object in the world seems like madness to me.

[dagmx]

They seem to have a real hate for emojis based on the rest of the comments they’re leaving on this post.

I think they’re just approaching every argument from that perspective so any positive is treated cynically