Experts such as Lilian Stolk do agree: more transparency in the decision-making process would help to create a better understanding of the consortium’s choices. For example, the menstrual emoji didn’t make it, despite half the world having to deal with it, but a drop of blood was eventually added. Stolk thinks that’s a good thing, she said earlier in NRC:
The idea is: that drop can represent more than just menstruation. That’s what I’m here for, you don’t want to end up with tens of thousands of emojis on our keyboard. But then Risk Managers Email List you also have to make such a decision in other cases. I think it would be good if users were more involved in that process.
An additional problem: Unicode never removes emojis. Once in the set, the unicode persists, so the emoji remains available forever. The reason for this is that the consortium sees archiving our language as its primary task. Possibly outdated symbols belong there just as well. Practically speaking, it presents a challenge. Because how many emojis will we end up with? Moreover, you may wonder if it is still really necessary to have a floppy disk in emoji? Or a joystick? Nice nostalgic items of course, but no teenager who still recognizes them.
Emojis will provide much needed fodder for discussion in the coming years. Is that bad? I do not think so. Language, and therefore also visual language such as emoji, is a dynamic phenomenon and will always continue to develop under the influence of the zeitgeist and technological developments. And development, a set that grows with the times, is also what keeps the emoji relevant.
This is evident from the annual election of the emoji that best summarizes the year of Emojipedia. Which one won 2021?efore 2022 , the election will still be held . So do vote