Could we have simpler emojis?

pat500000

Suspended
Original poster
Jun 3, 2015
8,515
7,386
maybe having emoji can cause little bickering. Maybe if we can have only happy face and sad face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arran

pat500000

Suspended
Original poster
Jun 3, 2015
8,515
7,386
By "simpler" I thought you meant "easy to understand". I don't understand what it is a few of them are trying to convey. Mostly, they appear as though they've all had a stroke.

o_O

wtf is that?
No need for extra faces...like the one you posted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arran

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
47,470
16,001
By "simpler" I thought you meant "easy to understand". I don't understand what it is a few of them are trying to convey. Mostly, they appear as though they've all had a stroke.

o_O

wtf is that?
You can always mouse over or tap and hold to find out what an emoji might be, and once you know you basically know from that point on basically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AngerDanger

Eric5h5

macrumors 68020
Dec 9, 2004
2,406
357
Or better yet, perhaps people could simply refrain from bickering. Instead of trying to blame it on emoticons.

--Eric
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlliFlowers

maflynn

Moderator
Staff member
May 3, 2009
63,850
30,363
Boston
maybe having emoji can cause little bickering. Maybe if we can have only happy face and sad face.
MacRumors already has a fairly restricted set of emoticons. I'm on other sites that have a much more expansive set.

Neh it causes confusion among staffs and members.
If it does cause some confusion with the moderators and admins, I'd say its an extreme rarity and the exception to the norm. Why create restrictions for the exception when the normal usage is shown to be fairly problem free?
 

pat500000

Suspended
Original poster
Jun 3, 2015
8,515
7,386
MacRumors already has a fairly restricted set of emoticons. I'm on other sites that have a much more expansive set.


If it does cause some confusion with the moderators and admins, I'd say its an extreme rarity and the exception to the norm. Why create restrictions for the exception when the normal usage is shown to be fairly problem free?
I'm just saying simplicity may be better but of course I could be wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arran

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
45,429
30,692
The Far Horizon
To be honest, I have on occasion had cause to consult the (extremely helpful and very useful) verbal guide which actually explains what many of these emojis actually mean, or what emotion they are trying to convey.

But then, most of the time, I rarely use them, and I tend to ignore them when I see them in a post if the meaning is not immediately clear to me (and sometimes, it isn't).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arran and pat500000

Goatllama

macrumors 6502a
Jun 24, 2015
617
622
Mountaintop Lair
I like the emojis offered. They are definitely a strange assortment, but I think they lend a whimsical air to what would otherwise be predominantly angry/negative faces. Forces users to get creative in their choice of facial expression!
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy

Arran

macrumors 601
Mar 7, 2008
4,353
2,725
Atlanta, USA
How would we respond with :confused: or :rolleyes: then?
Some expressions are ambiguous.

For example, this guy - :rolleyes: - is officially, "eye-roll", (there you go again) but his upturned mouth feels more like, "tongue-in-cheek" or "barely-concealed-grin", (did I just say that? Haha)

And this guy - :confused: - is officially "confused", but looks more like "crushed" or "devastated"
[doublepost=1461421635][/doublepost]
You can always mouse over or tap and hold to find out what an emoji might be, and once you know you basically know from that point on basically.
Until the next emoji designer redraws the faces on a whim - then we're back to square one!

This is quite unlike different fonts where, even with the most whimsical ones, it's still possible to discern an underlying character shape. Or, in the most obscure examples, to infer meaning from a collection of them forming a recognizable word shape.

No. With some of these emojis, it's almost like standing in front of a portrait in a gallery and trying to figure out what the artist was trying to say and then - as an additional hurdle - wondering if the other person who actually used that emoji bothered to do the same.
 

pat500000

Suspended
Original poster
Jun 3, 2015
8,515
7,386
Some expressions are ambiguous.

For example, this guy - :rolleyes: - is officially, "eye-roll", (there you go again) but his upturned mouth feels more like, "tongue-in-cheek" or "barely-concealed-grin", (did I just say that? Haha)

And this guy - :confused: - is officially "confused", but looks more like "crushed" or "devastated"
[doublepost=1461421635][/doublepost]
Until the next emoji designer redraws the faces on a whim - then we're back to square one!

This is quite unlike different fonts where, even with the most whimsical ones, it's still possible to discern an underlying character shape. Or, in the most obscure examples, to infer meaning from a collection of them forming a recognizable word shape.

No. With some of these emojis, it's almost like standing in front of a portrait in a gallery and trying to figure out what the artist was trying to say and then - as an additional hurdle - wondering if the other person who actually used that emoji bothered to do the same.
I'm glad you understand what i'm talking about. This :rolleyes: looks could indicate an insult to another person as the person who put that facial expression as "innocent" talk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arran

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
47,470
16,001
I'm glad you understand what i'm talking about. This :rolleyes: looks could indicate an insult to another person as the person who put that facial expression as "innocent" talk.
An insult is an insult, an emoticon is an emoticon and wouldn't be an insult inless it's connected to something that would be an insult.