|
|
|
|
|
by Y_Y
680 days ago
|
|
I dont want to supply munitions to the culture war, but I would like to add a counterpoint. Adding skin tone modifiers to emojis was a bit odd to me, since I view them as signifying emotions rather than people. Maybe that's why, of the six Fitzpatrick scale[0] skin tones they drew from, the only one not added was mine. Similarly odd to me (to the point of appearing performative) was having a male/female/ambiguous variant on every job emoji and a separate option for every two-child two-parent family "gender" permutation. That's not how I view language as working, particularly because you're not going to be able to cover all valid families that way. It makes more sense to me, if communication rather than tokenism is the goal, to have a couple of representative emojis that convey the general concept, and then specify whatever you want about the relevant people afterward. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale |
|
In fact the emoji committee backpedaled on family permutations for exactly this reason, and now recommends (exactly as you suggest) "symbolic" family glyphs and juxtaposition of existing people-emoji to describe families in detail.
You can read about it here: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2022/22276-family-emoji-guidelin...