[philwelch]

Whenever and wherever I possibly could, I always disabled graphical emoticons in favor of the text-only versions. I don't know why--maybe it's the same reason I turn off HTML email and do all of my programming and most of my writing and notekeeping in vim in a terminal window. Suffice it to say, it's quite weird to see someone wax poetic about the minute details of designing one of my least favorite features. It's so strange that even though I can't detect a bit of irony in your post, I'm still not sure whether or not this is some kind of elaborate joke.

[untog]

it's quite weird to see someone wax poetic about the minute details of designing one of my least favorite features

Someone has a different opinion to you. This is not rare, and should not be surprising. Turning off HTML e-mails, using vim... you are in a tiny, tiny minority. Nothing wrong with that, but don't go around thinking that people are being ironic because they don't agree with you.

[philwelch]

Oh I know--that's why I mentioned all that stuff, to point out what you're saying--but this is still Hacker News, and it seems a bit incongruous to see that particular opinion stated so intelligently on HN.

[kmfrk]

It's not. :)

Smilies are great for disambiguation, as people have some innate tendency to assume the most negative interpretation of a comment online; look at the culture of manufactured outrage in the U.S. over absurd interpretation of what people say in the public space. Of course, smilies like ":D" and such are rarely useful, and I prefer communicating in text to smilies when possible. (My Twitter feed barely has any smilies.)

I can see why you would usually turn them off, because they are often misused and superfluous, but text-based smilies usually serves the purpose perfectly well.

Go to a community like Quarter to Three[1] and behold the surliest community that has ever been suffered onto mankind. Emoticons do wonders in forum-based (BB-based) communities to lighten the mood.

Text is very poor for conveying tone, as your response and the ensuing conversation conveniently illustrate. Even if text weren't poor at the job, people would lack the time and skill to wield it convincingly.

Don't get me wrong, I hate smilies for the most part. I still see their purpose, when relevant, though.

[1]: http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/index.php

[sopooneo]

If people use them, they are useful, but my feeling on smileys has always been negative. The vast bulk of the time they are used to disambiguate a joke or sarcasm. But telling people you are joking kills the humor anyway, so just write plainly.

[batista]

Emoticons/smilies and such do emerged for the very reason you say, disambiguation of things that could be taken out of context in mail form.

Note that this disambiguation does not necessarily mean "making less ambiguous".

A smiley could also mean "make what I say more ambiguous, because I mean it in an ambiguous way (e.g half joking)".

So, it's only disambiguation in a meta-level: making what should be ambiguous more ambiguous, and what should be taken literally more literal.

>Smilies are great for disambiguation, as people have some innate tendency to assume the most negative interpretation of a comment online; look at the culture of manufactured outrage in the U.S. over absurd interpretation of what people say in the public space.

I think "manufactured" is the key word here (that and hypocrisy).

People used to be more vigilant about that kind of hypocrisy, but only if it's by people on the right (i.e a strict republican "man of god" that's caught red-handed with a prostitute, not on the "left", e.g a blog post in the lines of "Booth babes at a tech expo, that is so sexist" by someone who's idea of fun is Hooters).