[Fwd: RE: Emoji: chart updated with font glyph images]

Skip to first unread message

Rick McGowan

Jan 9, 2009, 8:41:39 PM1/9/09
to emoji4unicode, Ken Whistler
Attaching below some info from Ken Whistler (who is not on this list

And I agree with Ken that the font has gone way overboard in the
elaborateness of the glyphs and does not harmonize at all with the
simple line-drawing look of any other font used in the publication of
the standard. Examples: e-962, e-967, and some of teh symbols using
half-tones or cross-hatching such as striped heard e-B16, rainbow e00D.
Many of the glyphs are too much like clip art to be used as
representative glyphs in the standard.

Just my 2 cents.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Emoji: chart updated with font glyph images
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:33:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Kenneth Whistler <ke...@sybase.com>
Reply-To: Kenneth Whistler <ke...@sybase.com>
To: Gary.R...@teradata.com
CC: uni...@unicode.org, ke...@sybase.com

Gary Roberts said:

> ... I meant that the font should appear to be line
> drawing. One of the problems with emoji (and other symbols) is that it
> is hard to grasp what is essential, and what is simply happenstance. It
> is my opinion that the pixel look to current emoji displays is not a
> fundamental property of the characters, and we should attempt to not
> preserve this.

... my complaint with the font is that it is overly
elaborate and detailed, in many cases for the emoji
(pictographs) and emoticons (the faces) in particular
going way overboard in creating
pictures for objects, rather than sticking more closely to
the sketchy shapes seen in the phone sets. The font designer
went *way* overboard here. Example: e-982 COCKTAIL GLASS and
e988 TROPICAL DRINK are too elaborate. It would be far
better to start with an approximation to the DoCoMo glyphs
and only elaborate on them as minimally required to also
account for the extra detail of the KDDI and SoftBank glyphs
when distinctions are required. Overall, this is a style
issue for the font design, and what the proposal has now
are simply often inappropriate as glyphs for encoded
symbol characters.

The net effect is that I would agree with Gary that glyphs
that looked more like line drawings, rather than attempts
to render what amounts to 3D clip art, would be more

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages