> There have been some ridiculous inclusions in the past years despite more obvious candidates that are still missing.
Well, obvious missing to you. That's probably why it will always expand, no one will agree on when it's done, including you. ;)
Well, obvious missing to you. That's probably why it will always expand, no one will agree on when it's done, including you. ;)
Absolutely nothing wrong with that, especially since people on hn love to complain about inclusion of unnecessary assets in websites that could be more lightweight.
It’s really a win win of size reduction, consistency and accessibility.
The only competitive systems are something like font-awesome icons or SFSymbols. The latter isn’t available to sites afaik though.
There's no consistency, because different operating systems and web browsers display emoji differently, and emoji availability depends crucially on the OS or browser version.
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.
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.
I think they’re just approaching every argument from that perspective so any positive is treated cynically
It is consistent for the user on whatever system they are on. If they switch between apps, they see the same emoji that they’re familiar with.
The web developer doesn’t have to care what the icon looks like. They just say: use this emoji that semantically means “flower”. They know it may look different to other users but it will look like what that individual user is familiar with.
I'm not struggling with any concept.
It's a simple fact that as emojis continually get added to Unicode, not all browsers and operating systems support all emoji, and so one person sees a broken black box where another person sees the emoji. That's gross inconsistency.
Yeah in general but in this case it is probably just me and few friends who use that site.
I do not really care if they add more veggies etc. I mentioned it as user-case in context of adding random Emojis.