Loomio
January 6th, 2015 03:52

Emoji Support

GP
GP Public Seen by 1069

I think diaspora* should support emojis.

Emojis are Unicode smileys that originate from Japan. They were popularized by their integration in smartphone keyboards. They are very, very popular and are quickly becoming a standard in smiley usage. In fact, the Global Language Monitor determined that the heart emoji was last year's most popular "word".

Read more about emoji characters on Wikipedia.

However, even if they are widely supported on iOS and Android, emoji characters are very poorly supported on desktops and on the Web. See an example here. You should not see squares.

To remedy this problem, developers created Emoji One, an open source collection of emoji characters that are embedded directly on the Web. Twitter did the same, and now share their emojis with WordPress.com.

I suggest that diaspora* should do the same. I find emojis cute, they are becoming an open standard and they are very efficient in sharing feelings over the network.

Are you a developer? If you are interested in this idea, take a look at this page and this page.

Warning!

I bet some people will assume that emojis automatically replaces traditional text smileys/emoticons like :) or :(

This is wrong!

As you read earlier, emojis have their own Unicode characters. For example, a grinning face is Unicode U+1F603 (😃). No need to setup something like a system that replaces :grin: with an image!

Oh, and you don't like emojis? Well emojis are Unicode characters, so not displaying them properly because you don't approve them would be censorship! Diaspora* users should have the free speech to spam their contacts with how many emojis they like. 😉

Brent Bartlett

Brent Bartlett January 6th, 2015 04:10

I think that Diaspora should support the full Unicode set, if possible. I support this.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 04:13

I tested emoji support in diaspora* and it is… null for now.

For example, if I share "🐭", the Preview shows me the mouse (🐭), but after I send the message we lose the mouse!

Result: a nice, empty post. 😕

Dumitru Ursu

Dumitru Ursu January 6th, 2015 05:53

https://github.com/dimaursu/diaspora/tree/emoji
Support for unicode emoji is in place. Only MySQL had problems with it, and they are solved now. Pods that used Postgres already supported them.
I'm working on the support for twemoji. It should be done today.

Dumitru Ursu

Dumitru Ursu January 6th, 2015 05:55

Here is the mouse :P

Camil

Camil January 6th, 2015 08:53

Multumim, Dumitru, foarte tare ca faci asta, ma bucur ca exista si romani care se pricep la diaspora* pe-aici :-)

Thanks so much for implementing this, and sorry for the above message in a non-English speaking language ;)

Dumitru Ursu

Dumitru Ursu January 6th, 2015 09:31

It's almost there, although I have to find the right hooks, so it will be efficient and the screen will always be up-to-date.

@camil yeah, I will try to bring more romanian/moldovan developers around here. It's a very cool project, it deserves more attention.

Feel free to ping me at dima ceata org, or on IRC, I would be glad to get to know you ;)

Steffen van Bergerem

Steffen van Bergerem January 6th, 2015 10:43

We already have a thread about that topic: https://www.loomio.org/d/esJaABHn/add-smileys-support

goob

goob January 6th, 2015 12:03

And github: issue and pull request.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 14:26

@steffenvanbergerem @goob … wtf.

Did you read my original post? Read it.

This is not about emoticon support.
This is not about smileys support.
This is about emoji support.

The Loomio and GitHub discussions are a mess about that. People are complaining that :) should stay :) and not become 🙂. WTF? That's not how emoji works. Can you do that on Twitter? No, and it would be bad if Twitter did that.

Some people seem to have issues with what they call "graphical smileys" or "emoticons", which emojis are not. Personally, I find that opinion irrelevant, because I think it is obviously better in a conversation to be able to see the emojis than to see squares like this: 💳 👻

(You shouldn't be seeing squares, by the way.)

You can make another discussion (like the thread @steffenvanbergerem shared) if what you want is, for example, to replace :heart: with 💗 just like GitHub does. However, I will not support your proposal.

@dumitruursu Oh my! This is exactly what we need. You're damn quick!

Steffen van Bergerem

Steffen van Bergerem January 6th, 2015 16:23

@gp I read the introduction to this thread and I think that the goals are similar to the ones in the thread I mentioned. Both try to add support for additional ways to express yourself. @florianstaudacher said in the thread I shared

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

and also others mentioned emojis there. The original post asked to

replace some common signs by smileys

but as I said there are also solutions that were mentioned in the thread.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 16:26

@steffenvanbergerem But as I said, the discussions freely blend the different topics together. This Loomio discussion is focused on supporting emoji characters exclusively, not about input methods.

If you want, we can have a discussion on input methods later after diaspora* supports emojis. If it supports them, of course.

GP

GP started a proposal January 6th, 2015 16:34

Diaspora* should support emoji characters Closed 3:56pm - Tuesday 6 Jan 2015

Outcome
by GP April 25th, 2017 05:44

The discussion trend indicates me that everyone agree that diaspora* should fully support Unicode.

However, further proposals will determine whether certain technologies should be used to display these Unicode characters consistently across all platforms. In other words, if @dumitruursu's work should be merged into Diaspora*.

Yes, I agree: The Unicode emoji characters should be replaced with visually-consistent, cross-compatible visuals. For example, "🐢" would show a turtle on all devices and not only on Android and iOS smartphones.

No, I disagree: The Unicode emoji characters should not be supported by diaspora*. "🐢" should stay an unintelligible square on desktop computers OR should be disallowed from the system.

Results
Agree - 5
Abstain - 5
Disagree - 5
Block - 5
7 people have voted (2%)
GP

GP
Agree
January 6th, 2015 16:36

Emojis are now standard and in 2015, we now have the freedom and open source to make this innovation shine as free software.

trekkie@nomorestars.com

trekkie@nomorestars.com
Agree
January 6th, 2015 16:36

GP

GP
Agree
January 6th, 2015 16:39

Emojis are now standard and in 2015, we now have the freedom and open source code to make this innovation shine as free software.

Emmanouel Kapernaros

Emmanouel Kapernaros
Agree
January 6th, 2015 16:44

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 16:59

Hell, we could even make diaspora* an emoji-only social network!

(That was a joke.)

Steffen van Bergerem

Steffen van Bergerem January 6th, 2015 17:37

@gp Can you suggest a concrete icon font for emojis that would work well with our design? AFAIK that was the biggest problem so far.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß
Abstain
January 6th, 2015 17:43

I would have no problem with including a nice font that supports these, I would not agree with replacing those with images. The proposal is unclear about what should be done.

Q

Quetschwalze
Agree
January 6th, 2015 17:50

I think this is already state of the art and a lot of people are used to this!

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 18:12

@steffenvanbergerem @jhass What are you talking about? It's not a font, but a javascript workaround that replaces the characters with images.

See this example:

Emoji support!

Here is the technology by Twitter.

It works well with any fonts and with any designs.

@jhass What's wrong with replacing those with images? That's what Twitter and WordPress do, and it works like magic.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 18:14

I don't like most emoji image representations in general and haven't seen a single one that would integrate well into Diasporas current design.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 18:15

but a javascript workaround that replaces the characters with images

Better read the proposal again, that's not what it's talking about. If that's really what's meant, I'm gonna have to block it, since then it would be extremely poor worded.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 18:17

@jhass What is the proposal about? You are extremely whimsical.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 18:22

I'm not too sure actually, that's why I abstained. I relate it to making sure that the storage backend can actually store the unicode characters in question, that the post processing does not alter them and maybe to provide some way to make sure they're displayed in one form or the other everywhere. As said I think it's a bit vague, which is why I abstained.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 18:23

Also please refrain from getting ad hominem, that's really not necessary and won't strengthen your position in anyone's eyes.

goob

goob January 6th, 2015 18:23

GP, are you the same person as Cam Camil/riderplus (and others)?

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 18:24

@jhass Then please don't make subjective observations that add nothing to the discussion: "I don’t like most emoji image representations in general"

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 18:25

I'm not allowed to express my opinion now?

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 18:27

@jhass The proposal is yet vague because it's about the concept, and not about the technology itself. There are probably multiple ways to achieve this. However, the current preferred method is the one Twitter, WordPress and @dumitruursu are using, which involves replacing the characters with images. That's the only way to achieve this yet, because fonts do not support colors (unless, on desktop computers). Google is working on a font for that (Google Noto Sans), but it's not yet supported.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 18:31

@jhass Of course, but then I also have the right to declare your opinion as "whimsical".

@goob I have no idea who these people are. However, if you are referring to my attitude, it seems like I may not be the only one to feel the same way about diaspora*: I feel like diaspora* is currently being managed by a developer oligarchy which is hindering the UX part of diaspora* from moving forward.

However, consider this as off-topic from the discussion. Also don't take this in consideration when voting for the proposal.

Steffen van Bergerem

Steffen van Bergerem January 6th, 2015 18:37

@gp I'd like to use an emoji font instead of images. We already switched to an icon font (entypo) and that works really well so far. (except for joindiaspora but that is pod specific) We wouldn't have to replace characters and could just parse the text and add a specific class to some characters to display them with the emoji font.

Just like @jhass I haven't seen an emoji font that would fit our current design.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 18:39

The proposal is yet vague because it’s about the concept, and not about the technology itself.

And I'm saying that such a proposal that doesn't make clear on how to do it and how it would look like, is rather useless and won't add anything to the discussion, as you phrased it.

That’s the only way to achieve this yet, because fonts do not support colors

That assumes "this" is "colored emoji", which is nowhere made clear. Microsoft is doing grayscale emoji since the 90s (see Webdings) and basically 90% of the Unicode Emojis added by Unicode 7 are coming from these.

Of course, but then I also have the right to declare your opinion as “whimsical”.

I think there's an important difference in saying "I don't like X" and "X is okay because Y is Z", with Y being a person and Z being an insult.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 18:41

@steffenvanbergerem Then I suggest that you use the current workaround @dumitruursu is working on instead of waiting for a font to be developed. What matters right now is that emojis are not currently being supported and that most of them can only be viewed on smartphones. There is no such thing as an emoji font yet, except Noto Sans Emoji which is not designed to be a Web font.

Better support any emoji design than no emoji at all.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 18:46

@jhass Relax! Further proposals will make decisions on futher details. The current proposal is to see if it is relevant and important to support emojis, or if it's just a pointless idea. There's no need to come up with a 100% established solution yet (especially because there are more than one complete solution).

Microsoft is now working on full-color emojis.

As you can see, colored emoji fonts are being developed, but only as proprietary and native projects. That's why Twitter's emojis are so good.

Steffen van Bergerem

Steffen van Bergerem January 6th, 2015 18:51

Better support any emoji design than no emoji at all.

I disagree. While it would be great if we would support emojis (in terms of displaying them with a special font) I still think that implementation and design matters and if that is bad I'd rather wait.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 18:52

There is no such thing as an emoji font yet

I'm on my laptop. I use Firefox.

$ pacman -Qs noto
$

Yet I do not see any squares in the proposal but a turtle. Must be the NSA messing with my computer or somehting...

There’s no need to come up with a 100% established solution yet

Okay, then I'll probably just ignore Loomio from now on and you can find somebody else to merge PRs I disagree with. But I'd rather prefer to not waste my time on voting on even more "I can haz this please" proposals.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 18:53

@steffenvanbergerem If a special font did exist, then right now Twitter and WordPress would not be working on a JavaScript technology.

What's wrong about Twemoji?

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 18:57

What’s wrong about Twemoji?

Nothing, the issue is that you're trying to change people's opinions. Some people, including me and apparently Steffen, just don't like the looks of the provided graphical emojis or graphical emojis in general. That's it.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 19:00

@jhass Indeed, you just proved my point that there is no such thing as an emoji font for the web yet.

The turtle is a proof that you're on an unfair system. Most people don't see the turtle, and that's the problem. Diaspora* users should not be forced to use Arch Linux with Noto installed in order to see the turtle.

Okay, then I’ll probably just ignore Loomio from now on and you can find somebody else to merge PRs I disagree with. But I’d rather prefer to not waste my time on voting on even more “I can haz this please” proposals.

As you wish. However, I suggest being patient and let things come when it is time. @dumitruursu is working on a solution. After the first proposal will end, if it is favorable to emojis then another proposal would be created to determine whether his solution should be merged as a temporary workaround. As I said, it would be pointless to just ask everyone "Should be merge @dumitruursu's work?" because we should first decide whether or not we care about emojis.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 19:05

@jhass It doesn't matter if you don't like graphical emojis, since you would only see them when people would want to use them. For example, I don't personally care if "ß" is supported by diaspora* or not, but it has to be supported by diaspora* since some people want to use it.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 19:09

So you're saying I should not follow people because they use emojis I don't like, while I like what they write? I shouldn't express my opinion on them just because I potentially could ignore all people using them? Sorry, but now you're talking bullshit. Also you start to mix topics again, being able to store and deliver the unicode codepoints and replacing them by some alternate representation or even delivering a font that can represent them are very distinct technical aspects.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 19:10

@jhass I'm not saying that.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 19:12

Weird, English is not my native tongue, but my past experience has shown me that my reading comprehension is not too bad.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 19:12

@jhass What I mean is that don't forbid people from expressing themselves with the characters they want because you don't like these characters or the way they are stylized.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 19:14

@jhass I may have used ad hominem for "whimsical" but you are using a condescending attitude which is just as worse.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 19:19

I guess your reality check is broken. I'm not even in the power to forbid that, I'm merely expressing my opinion, which is worth as much as yours or anybody else's. I did not block the proposal, heck I did not even disagree with it. Since we're into the logical fallacies now, you're basically pulling a straw man there.

you are using a condescending attitude which is just as worse

Mmh, I try to avoid logical fallacies and I know I suck at doing so. But Google is not providing much on this one. Can you explain more? Specific examples of where I did that and alternate, better phrasings? Please remember, English is not my native language.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 19:24

@jhass

Weird, English is not my native tongue, but my past experience has shown me that my reading comprehension is not too bad.

You could have written:

Weird, it seems that I have misunderstood what you meant.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 19:33

Weird, it seems that I have misunderstood what you meant.

That's not what I meant there though. I did read your statement several times prior responding and did read it several times again now, I still don't know what you're meaning with that then. And so far you don't seem to want to clarify. One could even argue that with not clarifying in

I’m not saying that.

you were showing condescending attitude first, since you assume that your statement is perfectly clear and I'm just incapable of understanding it. Note that I'm not saying it's unclear, I'm saying it's unclear to me. Which of the two is closer to the truth though, we won't find out with just us two talking.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 19:35

I should clarify, it's unclear to me if my first obvious interpretation is wrong.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 19:35

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 19:37

@jhass Then I guess you really did not understand what I meant. I felt offended because I thought you did. Sorry for such a misinterpretation mess.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 19:38

Direct quote:

What I mean is that don’t forbid people from expressing themselves with the characters they want because you don’t like these characters or the way they are stylized.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 19:43

Well I already answered to the "forbid" part and I made clear that I'm just expressing opinion on the topic a lot earlier. So I still kind of fail to see any misinterpretation of your statements on my part and I kind of have the feeling that you're ignoring statements of mine that you cannot answer, but that might very well be an issue on my side.

Camil

Camil
Agree
January 6th, 2015 19:45

I think it's a very useful proposals, in many ways.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 19:51

@jhass The thing is, I don't want to censor anyone and I don't want you to unfollow anyone. It's your choice if you want to unfollow someone because that person uses emojis. What I think matters, and matters to this Loomio discussion, is that diaspora* users should have the choice to use Unicode emojis, even though you don't like emojis, and that these emojis should be replaced with images for cross-compatibility.

Camil

Camil January 6th, 2015 19:56

@goob

GP are you the same as Cam Camil/riderplus and others

Please be aware that one cannot create clone accounts on Loomio in the first place. Secondly, you can stick your sarcastic remarks where you took them from, if you know what I mean, in a very polite manner :). As @gp stated , you have to read the proposal before posting comments. Thank you.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 19:59

@camil Please please please, don't turn this into fire! He will have to realize this by himself in his life, no need to start a war here. You're making it sound as if we are in war against him. And almost as if we are the same person! I can understand what he means.

And yes, it is possible to create multiple accounts on Loomio. Just have multiple email addresses, and Incognito mode in Google Chrome can do the job.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 20:02

Stop the straw man please, seriously. I never said I don't like emojis. I never said I would block emoji support in general. I did not block this proposal. Assuming I said any of these, as I already said multiple times now before (which is where the feeling comes from that you ignore part of my statements), I do not even have the power to keep them out of Diaspora, I do not own the project.

All I said is that I don't like graphical emojis and that I would vote no on a proposal about adding them. I also said I would block this proposal if it's in fact about providing graphical emojis, since that's not clear from the proposal and thus the proposal is unclear and should be redone. Which would be the reason for blocking the proposal, not my dislike of graphical emojis. Additionally we decided in the early days that a block ultimately just counts as a no vote and is merely meant as an indicator to the involved parties that there's something wrong about the proposal.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 20:07

I don’t like graphical emojis

That's the source of the misinterpretation. I assume "graphical emojis" is a pleonasm since emojis are graphic symbols.

I understand the value of a "block" vote.

Now instead of continue this argument, could you please rephrase the proposal according to your intererpretation?

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 20:14

I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but the entire reason for my abstain is that I'm unclear about what I would agree or disagree about on this proposal, so no I cannot as much as I'd wish to.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 20:16

Here are examples to explain my view of the issue.

Please take a look at this web page.

Scroll down a bit.

Problem #1 is the "turtle example" I gave earlier. Most smartphones do support emojis, but most desktops don't. Setting up a universal "emoji font" or equivalent would solve that issue.

Problem #2 is the "color emoji" example I gave earlier. Emojis have the popular reputation to be very colorful, which is not the case with most emoji fonts on the desktop.

This is why for now, until color emoji fonts get implemented as a standard for desktop and browsers, I think technologies like Emoji One and Twemoji should be used by diaspora* to display emojis consistently.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 20:17

@jhass You seem to have pretty much only disagreed so far. Sorry if I'm wrong, this is not supposed to be offensive but just an observation.

Therefore, could you tell us in details what you agree with?

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 20:25

None that are explicitly mentioned in your proposal, it being too vague with too little details to agree or disagree with is my entire point after all. Saying that some abstract thing, in this case emojis, should work in some abstract way, in this case "be supported", while multiple different and distinct concrete variations that fulfill these requirements exist, is, to me, a waste of time.

I already outlined that, but since we're now in the repeating ourselves phase: I do agree that the storage mechanisms used should be able to store the unicode codepoints used for emojis unaltered. I do agree that we should be able to deliver the unicode codepoints used for emojis unaltered. I do agree that the post parsing should not alter these codepoints. I do agree that we should deliver a nice font being able to represent these codepoints in case we find one that we can use.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 20:31

@jhass Thank you for the clear repetition ;-)

However, could you explain us what "codepoints" and "parsing" are? I am not enough experienced with fonts and Unicode to be familiar with these technical terms.

Also, could I know why you absolutely want it to be a font, and not a system like Twemoji?

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 20:34

@jhass Also, I created the proposal because I thought you opposed emojis. Can I then close this proposal and then assume that we all agree that diaspora* should support emojis?

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 20:49

Unicode is a standard that maps certain values (=numbers) to a meaning. Those mappings are called codepoints. Let's take the turtle as an example: "U+1F422 TURTLE", here we can see the number 128034 (1F422 is its hexadecimal representation) is a codepoint, it has for example the name "TURTLE" associated. That's what it does at this point, it associates a meaning, 128034 should represent a turtle, 41 (U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A) represents an uppercase latin 'A' and so on.

A font maps symbols or pictograms to codepoints. These days those usually are vector graphics on the technical level.

An encoding specifies how a sequence of codepoints is encoded to a sequence of bytes. A byte is a sequence of 8 bits. A bit can be one of two numbers, 0 and 1, thus 8 bits (= 1 byte) can represent two to the eight numbers, 256 different numbers, 0-255. As you can see Unicode defines a lot more numbers than 256, so you need to combine multiple bytes in a certain way to reach those. An encoding specifies on how to do that. For Unicode the most common encoding is UTF-8.

So to get our turtle from a byte sequence somewhere stored in a database and then transmitted through the internet to your browser, we need to go through these three things. Decode the byte sequence using UTF-8 to Unicode codepoints and then use a font to map those codepoints to some vector graphic.

With post parsing I refer to the process that turns your Markdown into HTML, turns your hashtags into links you can click on, turns your mentions into links you can click on and so on. Things like Twemoji would hook into that process and search for the codepoint of the turtle, then replace it with an HTML image tag or something like that.

And for the last one I just repeat myself once more: I don't like those images, they look to childish and flashy to me and they don't integrate nice into the text flow, since the font rendering system can't influence them. I'm not saying that the fonts look amazingly beautiful, but they look better to me than the image sets I've seen.

Dennis Schubert

Dennis Schubert
Abstain
January 6th, 2015 20:54

Yes for keeping the unicode characters, No for replacing them by images.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 20:56

@jhass I see, so there isn't that much of a problem after all. I guess I can go on and close the proposal, assuming that everyone agrees for full Unicode support.

However, we'll now have to decide whether we should merge @dumitruursu's work into Diaspora*.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 21:01

So, I guess someone can create a pull request to merge this fork by @dumitruursu into diaspora*?

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 6th, 2015 21:05

Already done before you even opened your proposal: https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora/pull/5530

The technical change is about supporting all of Unicode codepoints, something we most certainly want, it's just rather unnecessarily argued with emoji support, since that's what @dumitruursu was working on while hitting that issue. To add to the confusion he accidentally pushed his twemoji changes to that branch too, which was undone in the meantime though.

GP

GP January 6th, 2015 21:08

@jhass Oh! That's nice.

@dumitruursu Can the Twemoji changes be found on another branch though?

Dumitru Ursu

Dumitru Ursu January 7th, 2015 00:31

@gp yes, there is another branch https://github.com/dimaursu/diaspora/tree/twemoji ; note - this does not work yet, I could not find the right hooks into the backbone views.

@jhass got it right, I wanted emoji, and it turned out that on a pod with Posgres as the database, unicode emoji worked fine, but MySQL has issue - utf8 in MySQL is misleading, it's not "real" utf8, just a subset, more specifically 3-byte per character UTF, when the standard has 4.

Now, the problems gets a bit more complicated - I did a conversion of the database, and it worked fine - in the meantime, I found a issue while making the database from scratch - MySQL needs a ton of attention to have this feature work properly. I will solve that issue soon.

The "bird's eye view" of the problem is like this:
All is fine when using Postgres, and soon will be like this with MySQL too. That means, in the database, we will have utf-8 strings, emojis included (the simplified ones, not the graphical fancy ones).

To make emojis pretty we then can either:

  1. Patch the font we are using, with something more apealing (that's kinda hard, and the designers will be limited) - it will look similar with FontAwesome, that kind of things.

  2. use a library like twemoji, replacing in the view with img-tags. That's what's happening in the branch I posted above.

GP

GP January 7th, 2015 00:41

@dumitruursu That's very good work, thank you.

I really want emojis to be cross-platform, and I would prefer them to be colored. However, I admit that it is a preference, and not a necessity. (Though it is a fact that emojis are popularly known to be colored and not monochrome.)

Can font-based emojis be colored? If not, I would support the use of Twemoji.

… but feel free to share all the possible libraries and fonts that we can choose from. For now, I only know Google Noto Emoji (which I think cannot be used), Twemoji (which is used by WordPress and Twitter) and Emoji One.

Apple's emoji characters sure are not open source. I wonder why GitHub uses them…

Dumitru Ursu

Dumitru Ursu January 7th, 2015 00:47

Not yet. In the next version of Unicode (now we have version 7, version 8 will have "skin tones").

The only reasonable solution is to use a library like twemoji at this moment. It's the most customizable too, it's way harder to edit fonts.

I can think of another issues with a font-based solution - even if you will never use a emoji in your life, you will have to download a huge font, containing them.

GP

GP January 7th, 2015 00:51

@dumitruursu True! I know that using a lot of fonts on a website can affect page load. A colored emoji font would take a heck of a time to load…

Customization is an advantage too.

GP

GP January 7th, 2015 00:51

@dumitruursu Would Twemoji be hosted directly into diaspora* or would it fetch it from Twitter's servers?

GP

GP January 7th, 2015 00:56

Are we ready for another Loomio proposal? I would think of something along the lines of…

Diaspora* should replace Unicode emoji characters with images from a library like Twemoji

What do you think? Too vague, too precise? Wrong terms? Too long question? I think we've had enough repetitions in the comments to make the details quite clear to anyone.

Dumitru Ursu

Dumitru Ursu January 7th, 2015 00:58

@gp

https://github.com/dimaursu/diaspora/blob/twemoji/app/assets/javascripts/app/models/post/interactions.js#L86

On this line, if we specify a "base" url like so, we use our servers. If we don't, then MaxCDN is used. That's the default, MaxCDN.

GP

GP January 7th, 2015 01:00

@dumitruursu I see. Such a feature in such a short line, that's wonderful :)

GP

GP January 7th, 2015 16:22

Alright, so here are a few samples from Twitter's and WordPress' Twemoji library.

Food!

Faces!

Monkey

Dog

Pig

Frog

Mouse?

Heart

Tulip

Rose

Sunflower

Controller

Party

Rocket

According to WordPress' article, there are 872 emojis converted to images so far.

They were designed by The Iconfactory.

GP

GP started a proposal January 7th, 2015 16:38

Diaspora* should replace Unicode emoji characters with images from a library like Twemoji Closed 11:05am - Monday 19 Jan 2015

Outcome
by GP April 25th, 2017 05:44

Diaspora will, by default, keep Unicode emoji characters as font characters. However, since almost 47.5% of votes support emoji library support, the feature can be offered as an opt-in on an individual basis once it is ready.

Further decisions may discuss about emoji fonts, emoji image libraries, and choice of such technologies.

Agree: You want diaspora* by default to replace Unicode emoji characters such as "🐭" (mouse) with an equivalent image that displays consistently on all platforms (e.g. https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v1/72x72/1f42d.png for the mouse).

Disagree: You want diaspora* by default to keep Unicode emoji characters as font characters, even though that might make some of these characters unintelligible on certain platforms (e.g. "🐢" would look like a square instead of a turtle on some platforms). Further discussion would decide whether a monochrome font should be implemented to support all emojis on all platforms.

Results
Agree - 20
Abstain - 20
Disagree - 20
Block - 20
42 people have voted (14%)
Rasmus Fuhse

Rasmus Fuhse
Disagree
January 7th, 2015 16:46

I like plain letters and dislike, when they are replaced by images.

Augier

Augier
Disagree
January 7th, 2015 17:18

GP

GP January 7th, 2015 17:21

This emoji font exists but it's not free.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß January 7th, 2015 17:23

I extended the voting time for this one to include two weekends, since it might get rather controversial.

GP

GP January 7th, 2015 17:29

Could Symbola be used as a web font?

Lucas Meijer

Lucas Meijer January 7th, 2015 17:41

I personally believe the previous decision should have had a longer voting time. Remember that the Diaspora community is global - with that voting time, a lot of people were excluded from voting due to time zone (me being one of them).

Please try to keep this in mind when creating decisions in the future, @gp :)

Dumitru Ursu

Dumitru Ursu
Agree
January 7th, 2015 17:52

Colorful emojis are a mean of expression, and as anything else, it could be abused or put to good use. Just like words. I think we should provide this feature to the community, given that it does not pose a bit technical problem.

Dumitru Ursu

Dumitru Ursu January 7th, 2015 17:53

s/bit/big/

GP

GP January 7th, 2015 18:04

@fraktalizelove Sorry, it was cancelled voluntarily. The voting was already outdated, since Unicode support was already merged into the diaspora* project. I assumed that everyone wanted Unicode support anyway. There isn't any logical reason not to support that.

Therefore, the discussion should be divided in three parts:

  • Should full Unicode character support be added to diaspora*? The answer is obviously yes.

  • Should Unicode emojis be cross-platform? The answer is obviously yes, but emoji web fonts are currently hard to support. This would be an ultimate solution.

  • Should this cross-compatibility issue be corrected by a library of images like Twemoji? This is the current proposal.

@dumitruursu Very well worded. That's exactly what I've tried to say countless times :)

GP

GP January 7th, 2015 18:07

The fourth and ultimate question would be:

  • What font or what library should be used to display emoji characters on all platforms? For a font, we still don't know the range of possible choices. For libraries, Emoji One and Twemoji are available, and Twemoji support is currently being implemented by @dumitruursu.
Steffen van Bergerem

Steffen van Bergerem
Disagree
January 7th, 2015 18:14

I don't think we should replace chars with images.

Steffen van Bergerem

Steffen van Bergerem January 7th, 2015 18:25

@gp emojisymbols.com looks good but like you said they aren't free. I don't think colored emojis would integrate well in our current design but I'd support a nice, monochrome emoji font if it is free. (as in "free speech," not as in "free beer")

GP

GP January 7th, 2015 18:54

@steffenvanbergerem If only we could find a free equivalent…

M

MrmappyINOF
Agree
January 7th, 2015 19:20

Emojis are pretty much part of most social networks, so why not Diaspora*?

GP

GP January 7th, 2015 20:52

@rasmusfuhse Emojis are characters, not letters. No letter would be replaced with images.

Rasmus Fuhse

Rasmus Fuhse January 7th, 2015 21:19

Technically they are the same. I find it stupid to have characters in UTF8 that mean like U+26C4 ⛄ "snowman without snow" for example. In my opinion it is not due to encoding to show me a snowman without snow (whatever that might be, a carrot maybe, but that's another question). But even if there is a character that is meaning to be an image like this snowman, it is still a character and should be displayed as a character to the user. Maybe if we think about accessability U+26C4 has better chances to be understood as a snowman without snow than an image of such a snowman has - just think of a screenreader that is not able to read an image, but that might be able to speak the words snowman-without-snow to the blind user, because it actually knows what this character's about.

So I think that images in unicode are stupid, but even if someone thinks that those images might be worth for someone to be part of unicode, those images should not be real images like jpeg-graphics, but still be characters. When some clients have problems displaying U+26C4, it is a client's problem and the software of diaspora should not be responsible to fix other software's bugs. That's my opinion.

GP

GP January 7th, 2015 22:25

@rasmusfuhse I see, so you consider letters and emojis as being technically the same. That's what I wanted to make clear. I thought you were thinking that markup such as :smile: would be replaced with a smile image, which is not the case.