12 ms·

Have you heard of this thing called an image?

johnofthesea 3y ago
Hh sure I even like to create some. But for this purpose I do not bother. I need something small that I can just use for personal purpose. It works well with outdoor internet - where it is used. Adds bit of accent on minimal site to ease the navigation. I do not really care if they add more veggies etc. I mentioned it as user-case in context of adding random Emojis.
__jonas 3y ago
Emojis are great as quick icons that take zero work to source, add in, align with text in the layout and size consistently. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, especially since people on hn love to complain about inclusion of unnecessary assets in websites that could be more lightweight.
- xdennis 3y ago
  Every platform has its own set of pictures for emojis. How can you possibly align and size them consistently?
  - __jonas 3y ago
    I don't know what you are saying, they are always sized and aligned based on the font size regardless of platform or their appearance.
capableweb 3y ago
Looked it up, "image" sounds just like Emoji but with extra steps, annoying.
dagmx 3y ago
Emoji are zero cost resources for websites on most devices and have the benefit of matching the users expectations of iconography across the system, not to mention being accessible by default. It’s really a win win of size reduction, consistency and accessibility. The only competitive systems are something like font-awesome icons or SFSymbols. The latter isn’t available to sites afaik though.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > consistency There's no consistency, because different operating systems and web browsers display emoji differently, and emoji availability depends crucially on the OS or browser version.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    The emoji is consistent across their system. That’s the consistency that matters to most users.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      Incorrect, because emoji are being used to communicate with other people on different systems. That's their primary purpose, not to write to yourself.
      - dagmx 3y ago
        I’m not sure why you’re struggling with this concept. It is consistent for the user on whatever system they are on. If they switch between apps, they see the same emoji that they’re familiar with. The web developer doesn’t have to care what the icon looks like. They just say: use this emoji that semantically means “flower”. They know it may look different to other users but it will look like what that individual user is familiar with.
        lapcat 3y ago
        > I’m not sure why you’re struggling with this concept. I'm not struggling with any concept. It's a simple fact that as emojis continually get added to Unicode, not all browsers and operating systems support all emoji, and so one person sees a broken black box where another person sees the emoji. That's gross inconsistency.
        johnofthesea 3y ago
        > so one person sees a broken black box where another person sees the emoji Yeah in general but in this case it is probably just me and few friends who use that site.

Hh sure I even like to create some. But for this purpose I do not bother. I need something small that I can just use for personal purpose. It works well with outdoor internet - where it is used. Adds bit of accent on minimal site to ease the navigation. I do not really care if they add more veggies etc. I mentioned it as user-case in context of adding random Emojis.

__jonas 3y ago

Emojis are great as quick icons that take zero work to source, add in, align with text in the layout and size consistently. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, especially since people on hn love to complain about inclusion of unnecessary assets in websites that could be more lightweight.

xdennis 3y ago
Every platform has its own set of pictures for emojis. How can you possibly align and size them consistently?
- __jonas 3y ago
  I don't know what you are saying, they are always sized and aligned based on the font size regardless of platform or their appearance.

capableweb 3y ago

Looked it up, "image" sounds just like Emoji but with extra steps, annoying.

dagmx 3y ago

Emoji are zero cost resources for websites on most devices and have the benefit of matching the users expectations of iconography across the system, not to mention being accessible by default. It’s really a win win of size reduction, consistency and accessibility. The only competitive systems are something like font-awesome icons or SFSymbols. The latter isn’t available to sites afaik though.

lapcat 3y ago
> consistency There's no consistency, because different operating systems and web browsers display emoji differently, and emoji availability depends crucially on the OS or browser version.
- dagmx 3y ago
  The emoji is consistent across their system. That’s the consistency that matters to most users.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    Incorrect, because emoji are being used to communicate with other people on different systems. That's their primary purpose, not to write to yourself.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      I’m not sure why you’re struggling with this concept. It is consistent for the user on whatever system they are on. If they switch between apps, they see the same emoji that they’re familiar with. The web developer doesn’t have to care what the icon looks like. They just say: use this emoji that semantically means “flower”. They know it may look different to other users but it will look like what that individual user is familiar with.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > I’m not sure why you’re struggling with this concept. I'm not struggling with any concept. It's a simple fact that as emojis continually get added to Unicode, not all browsers and operating systems support all emoji, and so one person sees a broken black box where another person sees the emoji. That's gross inconsistency.
        johnofthesea 3y ago
        > so one person sees a broken black box where another person sees the emoji Yeah in general but in this case it is probably just me and few friends who use that site.