Loomio

Add smileys support ?

A
Augier Public Seen by 162

I was thinking it would be cool to replace some common signs by smileys in posts and comments. It's an easy thing to implement and it can add some coolness to the UI. Don't you think ?

G

goob Sun 21 Sep 2014

I also think no.

A

Augier Sun 21 Sep 2014

Aww, I wasn't aware this created such a debate.

But the idea of @flaburgan seem good, though, I mean place a table of UTF-8 smileys ?

To be honest, one of the thing that concerns me a bit is that Jappix Mini has a smileys auto-replacement. It would definitely break the unity of the d* user interface if the user could use smileys-replacement in the chat and not in the rest of d*. So, should we definitely take this feature out the chat, or adapt it in all d* ?

F

Flaburgan Mon 22 Sep 2014

It would definitely break the unity of the d* user interface if the user could use smileys-replacement in the chat and not in the rest of d*

iirc facebook does that. But yeah, we probably don't need emoticon in the chat too.

G

goob Mon 22 Sep 2014

Do you mean that we need emoticons (text-based) rather than smileys (graphical) in the chat?

A

Augier Mon 22 Sep 2014

I mean nothing. I just think that emoticons in chat is a very important feature and we can't suppress it and that it looks more professionnal if we have the same features in the publisher, the comments, the messages and the chat.

But we can only have text-based emoticons. I just wonder if it wouldn't be a problem for browser that don't use UTF-8 (IE, maybe ?)

G

goob Mon 22 Sep 2014

My comment was addressed to Fla's "But yeah, we probably don’t need emoticon in the chat too" - apologies that wasn't clear enough.

ED

Eric Dorman Wed 24 Sep 2014

This is a hot topic for sure debate wise, but as this product goes I think there may be more important features that need to be added. Don't get me wrong smileys are great, but I am not sold on it yet...

BB

Brent Bartlett Wed 24 Sep 2014

My complaint with the way that most smilies are implemented is that when I type a colon and a right paren, I want it to appear as a colon and a right paren...I don't want it to automatically get converted into a graphic. Want to insert UTF-8 smilies? Sure, why not. How about a table of images you can select from that get inserted inline? Cool beans.

I want to be able to still make ASCII smilies, though. And I don't want TL;DR to turn into TL(winky-grin face)R.

G

goob Thu 25 Sep 2014

It would be good to have user settings both to 'Turn my emoticons into smileys' (ON/OFF) and 'Replace smileys with emoticons' (ON/OFF). That way, each person can choose both whether text-emoticons they enter get turned into smileys, and also whether smileys created by other users are displayed in their streams.

IGM

Ivan Gabriel Morén Thu 25 Sep 2014

My problem with emoticons is mainly a design based one, they usually don't blend in very good with interfaces. If the design is done properly and there are clear options for enabling/disabling them I'm totally OK with them.

Hm, the browsers' inter pixel rendering differ a lot, I tried to design some graphical emoticons using html/css but the results were different with zoom levels and browsers. Maybe in the bright future of web technologies ;)

BB

Brent Bartlett Tue 30 Sep 2014

@goob A lot of services use emojis now. These are symbols that can be copy-pasted into a field either manually by the user or from a pop-up menu. They can be displayed in "plain" form or replaced by a graphic. I have successfully copy-pasted most of these into a text editor (Geany), which indicates that they are compatible with any service or system utilizing modern character sets.
http://getemoji.com/
😄 😃 😀 😊 ☺ 😉 😍 😘 😚 😗 😙 😜 😝 😛 😳 😁 😔 😌 😒 😞 😣 😢 😂 😭 😪 😥 😰 😅 😓 😩

G

goob Tue 30 Sep 2014

Which of my comments is that a reply to? It doesn't seem to match any of my comments.

G

goob Tue 30 Sep 2014

ps: I bloody hate emoji.

BB

Brent Bartlett Tue 30 Sep 2014

@goob I was replying to your last comment. Anyway, if you don't want to see emojis, they would be incredibly easy to filter out, because they're just characters.

G

goob Tue 30 Sep 2014

OK, thanks. That wasn't clear.

I realise I personally can filter out characters, or images from a certain source, by using browser extensions and the like (which I already do). However, I think if Diaspora chooses to support smileys, it should also offer users an easy way to disable them from their streams from within Diaspora's own UI. That was the point I was making.

BB

Brent Bartlett Tue 30 Sep 2014

@goob Oh, sure, I agree. Users should be able to turn off features that they don't like. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

G

goob Tue 30 Sep 2014

No problem. We've understood each other in the end!

A

Augier Thu 2 Oct 2014

Currently, there's already a kind of smiley support in the publisher. "<3", for exmple is translated to ♥

BB

Brent Bartlett Thu 2 Oct 2014

That's not too bad, I guess, because if you wanted to write "c<3" without it becoming "c♥" , you can just put a space in between the two characters. Having escape characters is still much better, because they don't appear in the output the way a space does.

A

Augier Thu 2 Oct 2014

Having excpe caracters is too much complicated imho. It's here, the same reservations à have on a full support of the markdow stadard. A simple exemple is the requirement too put two spaces beforestarting a new line. This is as un-intuitive as possible. I really think we should do some compromises for the comfort of the user, knowing that everyone has a background and some basic reflexes. To me, we should adapt a bit to these basic reflexes...

AA

Alberto Aru Fri 3 Oct 2014

I agree, we need icons and an option to enable or disable them.

S

StefOfficiel Mon 6 Oct 2014

Emoticons are not just things "kikoolol" but really a way to show an emotion or state of mind. I also think it would be a good idea to discuss added to the interface on D *. Do not go to the extreme either, just a few basic. It has always existed since MSN, why not blame them ? As Alberto Aru said, those who do not want it can turn it off !

BB

Brent Bartlett Wed 8 Oct 2014

@augier I dunno, for me, using a backslash to escape characters is a "basic reflex". In fact, when something won't let me escape with a backslash, I get annoyed. What's a better alternative?

A

Augier Wed 8 Oct 2014

@brentbartlett : I think the best idea is to make an option to activated by default.

We must understand that people joining us will in a vast majority come with basic reflexes taken from Facebook, Twitter, MSN like @stefofficiel said. They will try to adopt the same reflexes here. They might not understand that things that don't work on diaspora* are choices, not bugs or lacks of features.

This might look as details, but details are what make people comfortable and cosy. IMHO, it would be sad to see people start trashing diaspora* for little things like that.

It's a matter of choice. the two solutions are good to me. But we have to make a important choice here : do we choose to continue doing our geeky things with geaky features, potentially creating a gap with the less comfortable-with-technology people, or should we try to make it easier for them, potentially crating disturbing features for old users ?

I think that it's a feautre. Nothing more, nothing less. It won't hurt to let it be, as soon as it's possible to deactivate it. The third possibility we have is the github-style : when the person starts to write something that can be a smiley, displaying a list of smileys propostition, without inserting it for him/her ? A bit more complicated to implement, but a good compromise ?

S

StefOfficiel Wed 8 Oct 2014

Since I use a computer, since I started using the Internet, I've always seen and used smileys. Of course, do not make smiley base so noobies like Facebook with thumbnails, big smiley, no. But as @augier said he must consider the future users of Diaspora as they are, that is, the average user or users from Facebook. We obviously do not want a Facebook-Like but smileys are a means of expression as well as the text. It's a simple way to tell if you joking or not. And far beyond, the smiley dresses the text is a little emphasis on the web. Formally resign with smileys is like saying it would be better to redo the base diaspora in xHTML, it does not make sense. And of course, I understand people who do not want it, it's called freedom. The easiest way is to make an option to enable or disable smilies.

R

Rob Wed 8 Oct 2014

My three cents:

  1. The software should NOT convert my plain characters into smileys (or emoticons, or emoji, or whatever).

  2. If other users want to enable an auto-conversion feature for themselves, fine with me.

  3. The software SHOULD show me everyone else's smileys (or emoticons, or emoji..) exactly as they intended it. I'm not sure, but it sounds like some people are saying they never even want to see a smiley (for aesthetic purposes?) and so want an option to filter them out while reading other people's posts. That sounds pretty misguided, bordering on censorship. You might as well filter out all swear words, or words that begin with the letter Q, or the names of football teams you don't like...

To summarize: smileys and whatnot are obviously annoying and overused, and ought to be used sparingly, if at all, in the interest of good taste. But we are not the taste police, and they are, in fact, a form of expression, and we're all about freedom of expression, no?

BB

Brent Bartlett Wed 8 Oct 2014

First, I don't think that we should do things just because it's something that Facebook is doing, in an attempt to woo Facebook users to our platform. Diaspora should do what it's users want, not what Facebook's users want.

Second, I agree with @rob12 . The user setting for Emojis/Emoticons should change the way I post, not the way other posts look. So, for instance, if we decide that :) should be substituted with a smiley graphic, then, if I have the Emoji setting on, :) will become a smiley graphic for all users, and if I have it off, it will be :) (colon paren) for all users. This will also help prevent accidental substitutions, such as can happen with strings like TL;DR or blocks of code. If you think that your post will accidentally trigger the emoticons, you can turn it off, post, then turn it back on again, and your post will format as intended.

R

Rob Wed 8 Oct 2014

Put another way, whatever is done with smileys/emoticons/emoji, it should definitely be done upon input, not output.

S

StefOfficiel Thu 9 Oct 2014

Diaspora should do what it’s users want, not what Facebook’s users want.

Smileys have always existed ... It is not just Facebook only ...
I have seen it over the output, ie if I do not want a smiley, well I do not mind. If :-) must be transformed into this: ☺ where is the problem?
All over the internet smileys exist, why try at all costs to override the "rule"?

A

Augier Thu 9 Oct 2014

First, I don’t think that we should do things just because it’s something that Facebook is doing, in an attempt to woo Facebook users to our platform. Diaspora should do what it’s users want, not what Facebook’s users want.

Problem is, it's not only Facebook... It's as old as I use Internet (1998) I'm used t use them since I used MSN. For better or worse, they exists and are widely used, not only on Facebook.

I agree we shouldn't bend to whatever Facebook make, but we have a tiny latitude to move. Our decision should not impersonate lack of features.

I agree that smileys could be such a non-essential feature that we can afford to throw them. But I think we have to seriously discuss if his absence can hurt.

S

StefOfficiel Thu 9 Oct 2014

Personally, it frustrates me to use Diaspora without smileys, I use Diaspora because I know it's still in dev. But if tomorrow, Diaspora is stable version, and having voluntarily transferred the smiley for outlandish reasons, I think it would be one of the point you have to leave! And by then, social networks, there will surely others ...

Smileys have always existed on the web. And then well the hashtag @ uses for city smileys why someone would suddenly lost their place ? For what it's kikoolol ? And ?

Knowing a <3 currently doing a heart ...

S

shirish Thu 9 Oct 2014

Hi all, A net user since mid 90s. I dunno how people equate smileys with fb/facebook only. I remember being on usenet and IRC in the first few days being on chat and the same was also used, abused, exploited whatever in email and all sort of correspondence since then. Characters like :) :P :( and others do share from where a person is coming from. If a person makes a rude statement about something or somebody when s/he is in a sad state, people would perhaps have a bit more latitude to that person, or otherwise be more rude to that person.

I do understand that it could go to the other extreme as well and have no answer for that. If D* wants to have non-geeky people this would be one of the basic features people would like.

We can have debates about the best way to achieve that but not having it would probably be an dodo like attitude .

My 2 paise.

R

Rob Thu 9 Oct 2014

If D* wants to have non-geeky people

That question that seems to be at the heart of just about every feature discussion here...

A

Augier Thu 9 Oct 2014

That question that seems to be at the heart of just about every feature discussion here…

An that's a bad thing ? In what ?
diaspora* is a social network, naturally attempting to reach each and every person, not only the computer scientists...

We know how to escape characters because we've used it a lot. Not everyone do... This is logic.

R

Rob Thu 9 Oct 2014

@augier It's not a bad thing at all. I completely agree with you! Read my earlier comments, I'm all for smiley's and understand them as essential even though I don't particularly need them myself :)

A

Augier Thu 9 Oct 2014

@rob12 : Okey, I apologize ! :)

BB

Brent Bartlett Thu 9 Oct 2014

@stefofficiel @shirish
Yes, we've always had smilies, but the decision to make them into graphics has been more recent. In fact, we have smilies on Diaspora right now, as :) and =P and >:-( all work. The argument is whether or not to include graphics.

FWIW, I'm not against graphics, although I do think that UTF-8's extended character sets are a more elegant solution. I also quite like emojis, like they have on Ello. The issue I have is with text substitution.

BB

Brent Bartlett Thu 9 Oct 2014

I quite like @Flaburgan's suggestion here:
https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora/pull/4860
Add a link to the ASCII table in the publisher. This gives users easy access to smilies as well lots of other special characters. Perhaps it could be a dropdown menu, or something like that?

A

Augier Thu 9 Oct 2014

Which do not help me to decide whether or not to drop the graphics smileys on Jappix ! :)

BB

Brent Bartlett Thu 9 Oct 2014

IMO, it makes more sense to have the extension conform to Diaspora, not change Diaspora to conform to the extension. I'm in favor of dropping them from Jappix.

G

goob Fri 10 Oct 2014

@rob12

The software SHOULD show me everyone else’s smileys (or emoticons, or emoji..) exactly as they intended it. I’m not sure, but it sounds like some people are saying they never even want to see a smiley (for aesthetic purposes?) and so want an option to filter them out while reading other people’s posts. That sounds pretty misguided, bordering on censorship. You might as well filter out all swear words, or words that begin with the letter Q, or the names of football teams you don’t like…

Oh, not this argument again. How on earth does choosing what I see amount to censorship? You might as well say I'm censoring by choosing not to read every single blog post on the internet. It doesn't stop anyone from publishing what they want (which is what censorship actually means); it just enables me, personally, to choose what I see, personally, with my own eyes. Please don't call this migsuided or try to equate it with censorship.

ps: I'm just about to 'censor' all films currently on release by not going to the cinema tonight.

G

goob Fri 10 Oct 2014

Another way of saying it: censorship is preventing people from saying what they want to say. Allowing people to choose what they see doesn't prevent anyone from saying what they want to say, so isn't censorship. What you're proposing, on the other hand, means forcing people to see what they don't want to see, which is definitely misguided.

A

Augier Fri 10 Oct 2014

@goob On more pragmatic means : we cannot store unfinished posts and treats how to display them based on wether or not they decided to display smileys in their timeline.

If we decide to implement smileys, it's everything or nothing : the poster deceided to have smileys, everyone sees smileys. The poster decided not to, nobody sees smileys.

IMO, it makes more sense to have the extension conform to Diaspora, not change Diaspora to conform to the extension.

I agree with you, but still, I think ddefinitively dropping graphic smileys is a huge step backward...

G

goob Fri 10 Oct 2014

You've mentioned me name in your reply but quoted someone else, and appear to be addressing a point not made by me.

R

Rob Fri 10 Oct 2014

@goob Well, I said bordering on censorship. I know it's not the same. I probably shouldn't have used the word at all, sorry. Not sure what else to call it, but I still think it's a really bad idea. Not horribly dangerous and illegal like actual censorship, just bad for communication in general. If I am using a certain platform to communicate with you, then I am trusting the platform to deliver my message accurately to you. Once delivered, you can do whatever you please with it. It's totally your right to install or create a browser extension to block or alter things however you want. I just don't think the platform should be complicit in the mangling of my message. That erodes my trust in the platform.

A

Augier Fri 10 Oct 2014

@goob : I was answering to :

Allowing people to choose what they see doesn’t prevent anyone from saying what they want to say, so isn’t censorship. What you’re proposing, on the other hand, means forcing people to see what they don’t want to see, which is definitely misguided.

And I wanted to mean that we cannot format written messages based on the willing of every one that is going to see them.

G

goob Fri 10 Oct 2014

To answer both Rob and Augier:

In what way does replacing a yellow cartoon smiley with a text-based emoticon (and potentially vice versa) change the meaning or content of a post? Text-based emoticons and their cartoon equivalents convey (or are intended to convey) the same significance. Really, it's akin to displaying a message in a different typeface. There's no change in meaning. There would potentially be a change in meaning if smileys were completely blocked, which is what Rob proposes above.

I will absolutely block any proposal to introduce support for graphical smileys without also introduce a user option to display their text-based equivalents. That is a terrible idea.

R

Rob Fri 10 Oct 2014

@goob It occurs to me you might be thinking of this as just a display question, but I see it as a content question.

This would be the quick and superficial way to implement:

User A has "convert to smileys" option turned on, types a message with :), sees a graphic smiley, but the message is stored with the original plain :). Then when the message is displayed to User B there is another opportunity to convert it again or not, and so it seems logical that User B should have some say in the matter. I would call this a non-implementation, since User A has no reason to believe his message will be seen as intended, and the smileys basically amount to window dressing for his own amusement.

I think this is the correct implementation:

User A has "convert to smileys" option turned on, types a message with :), and it is actually converted to a graphic smiley. Or maybe they choose from a menu of graphic smileys, or emojis, or god-knows-what other awful dancing sparkly stupid things he wants to include. Either way, the graphic smiley (or at least, some code indicating THAT specific graphic smiley) is embedded with the stored message, and is PART of the message, as if I had embedded my own custom image or anything else.

If I think a winking smiley, a monkey, a birthday cake, and a pair of sunglasses is an essential part of my message, then the platform should respect that and deliver it faithfully. If you think that makes me sound like a dumb teenager then you can block me, but don't ask the platform to change what I said.

R

Rob Fri 10 Oct 2014

In what way does replacing a yellow cartoon smiley with a text-based emoticon (and potentially vice versa) change the meaning or content of a post? Text-based emoticons and their cartoon equivalents convey (or are intended to convey) the same significance. Really, it’s akin to displaying a message in a different typeface. There’s no change in meaning.

I don't think there really is an obvious one-to-one map of text to graphic and back to text when you get into more complicated smileys, and especially with emoji, etc. Yes, for the simple ones like :) and ;) the meaning is pretty clear, but there is WHOLE world of graphic icons out there, with different subtleties and accents. Every smiling face is not the same. That's like if I posted a picture of my dog, and you changed it to a different dog and said "what's the difference? It's still a dog".

There are really two debates getting mixed up here:

  1. Should we support smileys or emoji or anything like that at all? This is a valid debate about how essential these things are to communication in general, how much we want to cater to the general public, etc. I would personally be totally fine with none of this stuff on D* whatsoever -- though I also see the point of those who argue for it.

  2. IF WE DO decide to support them, how should it be done. This is what I feel strongly about. If we are going to support them, we should support them correctly and properly. Your suggestion is essentially feature sabotage: "Sure, go ahead and implement as long as it doesn't affect me in any way". I don't think that's valid. Either you implement or you don't, but if you do implement you implement correctly.

There would potentially be a change in meaning if smileys were completely blocked, which is what Rob proposes above.

Where did I propose that?

R

Rob Fri 10 Oct 2014

And yes, @goob, if you hate smileys and emoji you definitely should block any attempt to implement support for them. And it should take a whole lot of yes votes to overcome your (or anyone else's) block. Cause it will significantly alter the landscape, no doubt.

S

StefOfficiel Fri 10 Oct 2014

The graphics of smilies allows given color.

It's almost as if you were chatting in a chat with someone and you send him a picture (Snapchat, MMS whatever) with a grin! It's more alive than explained that grimace text!

By cons when I speak of emoticons or smileys, I'm referring to the basic ones such as these:

:-) :-D :-P :-( :-/ etc...

To overcome the problems, it is possible to make [;-D] for example !

Personally I'm not a fan of big emoji where there are hundreds!

I saw more than a small batch of smileys like a phpBB forum!

R

Rob Fri 10 Oct 2014

I promise you this: Once you open the pandora's box of graphic smileys there's gonna be no stopping the flood. So either keep that box shut tight, or face it head on, embrace the madness, and do it right.

A

Augier Fri 10 Oct 2014

@goob : I think you are thinking too pragmatic. The problem I see with no smileys is not a semantic one. It is aesthetic one. Smileys are fun, that's all. And what is fun makes d* more attractive, more intuitive.

Now, I understand your position. In a sense, I feel that you fear smileys to turn diaspora* into an empty social network, with no critical sense, like Facebook is, and I can't refrain from agreeing with you... It's difficult...

G

goob Fri 10 Oct 2014

Smileys are fun, that’s all.

We can also disagree on this point, then.

A

Augier Fri 10 Oct 2014

Well, for a great part of the users, at least think I. Maybe we sould vote ?

S

StefOfficiel Fri 10 Oct 2014

I tend to agree with @augier. Smileys are fun. Following as evoked @augier if your concern is that Diaspora become a Facebook uninteresting, do you honestly believe that it will be different without smileys?
I'm sure not. And then it takes for everyone. Let's vote!

A

Augier started a proposal Mon 13 Oct 2014

Should we implement graphic smileys in chat, posts and comments with possibility to disable auto-transform text to graphic smileys ? Closed Tue 21 Oct 2014

Outcome
by Augier Tue 25 Apr 2017

Not relevant

Currently, the Jappix chat automaticly transform text smileys to graphic smileys. Should we keep this feature and extend it to posts and comments with the possibility to disable the automatic transform to graphic smileys ?

Results
Agree - 8
Abstain - 8
Disagree - 8
Block - 8
22 people have voted (14%)
F

Faldrian
Disagree
Mon 13 Oct 2014

I don't want to see graphic smileys. If I turn them off and their token-code is not ascii-readable as the same emotion, that would be a big no-go for readability. And people will start wishing for other kinds of smileys. So: No.

R

Roy
Agree
Mon 13 Oct 2014

R

Roy
Agree
Mon 13 Oct 2014

Absolutely. This NIMBY attitude about smileys is startling. Nearly every socially connected application web or otherwise supports smileys. There must be a way to turn them off, I think that is fair, but to ban them outright is ridiculous.

R

Roy
Agree
Mon 13 Oct 2014

Absolutely. This NIMBY attitude about smileys/emojis is startling. Nearly every socially connected application web or otherwise supports smileys. There must be a way to turn them off, I think that is fair, but to ban them outright is ridiculous.

A

Augier
Agree
Mon 13 Oct 2014

JH

Jonne Haß
Disagree
Mon 13 Oct 2014

I yet have to see a smiley set that would integrate well into diasporas design. I agree to such a general proposal.

JH

Jonne Haß
Disagree
Mon 13 Oct 2014

I yet have to see a smiley set that would integrate well into diasporas design. I cannot agree to such a general proposal.

F

Flaburgan
Abstain
Mon 13 Oct 2014

Anyone can already embed any images he wants. I don't care, but I will not spent my time to work on something useless like that.

R

Rob
Abstain
Mon 13 Oct 2014

I lean slightly in the direction of sure, let's have smileys. But the way it's implemented will determine how much of a nuisance they are, so I can't really vote Yes until I see a more detailed implementation strategy.

S

StefOfficiel
Agree
Mon 13 Oct 2014

JH

Jonne Haß
Disagree
Mon 13 Oct 2014

Sorry, now that I read the proposal I don't even have to comment on the issue. This is NOT a proposal. It doesn't contain a clear statement that one can agree to or not agree to, instead it's phrased as question.

JH

Jonne Haß
Block
Mon 13 Oct 2014

Sorry, now that I read the proposal I don't even have to comment on the issue. This is NOT a proposal. It doesn't contain a clear statement that one can agree to or not agree to, instead it's phrased as question. Please make a clear proposal.

S

shirish
Agree
Tue 14 Oct 2014

Smileys have been the done since IRC and possibly even before that. The first hello world might have been the smiley. Graphical smiley which convert to normal ASCII smileys and vice-versa would be good.

KAK

Karthikeyan A K
Disagree
Tue 14 Oct 2014

Just requires unwanted work.

CK

Christos Koulaxizis
Agree
Tue 14 Oct 2014

R

riveravaldez
Abstain
Tue 14 Oct 2014

I fail to see the necessity of this feature.

JR

Jason Robinson
Abstain
Tue 14 Oct 2014

Don't care myself really - as long as ALL graphical smileys can be disabled by a user then whatever :) Any implementation without a possibility to disable showing smileys I would block as strongly as one can :P

IGM

Ivan Gabriel Morén
Disagree
Tue 14 Oct 2014

I definitely think we can do better.

E

Elm
Disagree
Wed 15 Oct 2014

«A separate input method for inserting the unicode emojis (= “text”) with a nice icon font that matches our design could better do the trick.»

BB

Brent Bartlett
Disagree
Fri 17 Oct 2014

Given that this issue is so contentious, we probably should hold off on this until we've ironed out the issues a bit more. IMO, development with Jappix should move forward with the smilies left in. Design issues can be fixed later.

RF

Rasmus Fuhse
Disagree
Fri 17 Oct 2014

Just a personal note: I don't like emoticons at all. Sentences spiked with emoticons take me longer to read them correctly and sometimes I still won't understand what they mean. I'd be happy not to support emoticons that much in Diaspora.

A

Asher
Agree
Fri 17 Oct 2014

You can do smilies in text. I think it is logical to represent them graphically. Also, phones can type unicode emoticons but right now I think diaspora filters them out.

T

theradialactive
Agree
Mon 20 Oct 2014

DS

Dennis Schubert
Block
Mon 20 Oct 2014

What? Is this about the chat? about comments? about posts? Please clarify the proposal and don't mix multiple topics.

TS

Trolli Schmittlauch
Agree
Tue 21 Oct 2014

Maybe this can be done based on Emojis instead of graphics

A

Augier
Block
Tue 21 Oct 2014

I realize my proposition was really not clear. I will open another to clarify things.

S

StefOfficiel
Block
Tue 21 Oct 2014

The question was not clear, @Augier am asking you to vote for BLOCK make a new proposal.

ST

Sean Tilley
Agree
Tue 21 Oct 2014

R

Roy Mon 13 Oct 2014

Embedding images is not a solution for emoticons and it is ridiculous to offer that as a solution.

R

Roy Mon 13 Oct 2014

I also wouldn't say diaspora has much of a design aesthetic currently. It's mostly a bootstrap-esque design. I do not agree that smiley's would be so detrimental to the design to not make them an option for people who want them. It would be easy to convert an emoji to its textual alternative for the NIMBY's: http://www.emoji-cheat-sheet.com

JH

Jonne Haß Mon 13 Oct 2014

Note that I'm not so much referring to to the tile as to the description. Also it doesn't give the possibility to express the valid opinion to keep smileys in the chat but not integrate them anywhere else.

R

Roy Mon 13 Oct 2014

I am also concerned that there was already support for smiley's but that support was ripped out with any community discussion
https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora/pull/1605

JH

Jonne Haß Mon 13 Oct 2014

@roy2 there was generally very little community discussion in these days. Also that removed converting things like :-) to Unicode emojis, not graphical smileys

R

Roy Mon 13 Oct 2014

Do not the unicode emojis have graphical representations? http://apps.timwhitlock.info/emoji/tables/unicode

R

Roy Tue 14 Oct 2014

huh?

A

Augier Tue 14 Oct 2014

Also it doesn’t give the possibility to express the valid opinion to keep smileys in the chat but not integrate them anywhere else.

@jonnehass : It can be the subject of another proposition.

To make the proposition clearer :

Currently, the chat front-end converts text-smileys to graphic smileys.

I propose to add a feature to let the user disable this auto-convertion and extend the system to posts and comments.

JH

Jonne Haß Tue 14 Oct 2014

If you intend multiple proposals then don't mix the topics, make one for whether we want them in the chat and one for whether we want them anywhere else. And as said avoid questions, make a clear statement to a agree or disagree with.

JR

Jason Robinson Tue 14 Oct 2014

I am also concerned that there was already support for smiley’s but that support was ripped out with any community discussion

That was when community didn't have power to discuss. You might know things have changed ;) (hint: no company behind the project, just a community)

FS

Florian Staudacher Tue 14 Oct 2014

I don't mind smileys as long as it doesn't auto-convert a combination of symbols to a graphic. I want my punctation to remain as I intended, and I also don't want to have images in my text where there should be none.

A separate input method for inserting the unicode emojis (= "text") with a nice icon font that matches our design could do the trick.

BB

Brent Bartlett Wed 15 Oct 2014

@roym Why is that ridiculous?