- From: Charles F. Munat <coder@acnet.net>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:16:29 -0600
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "Jessica Chaiken" <jchaiken@mindspring.com>
Jessica Chaiken wrote: "Rail all you want, but you cannot keep language and language use from changing. Language is a living thing which grows, changes, and sometimes dies over generations." This suggests that there is nothing we can do about it. Of course languages grow and change (I presume you were being metaphorical in calling it a "living thing"). The question is, are "emoticons" helpful or hurtful to our language and our culture (whichever language and culture you happen to be part of)? I stand by my original contention that emoticons cheapen the language. And because I believe there is a strong connection between what we can express and what we can experience, I think that things that cheapen our language also cheapen our experience of life. And I think that we, as a society, are NOT helpless with regard to changes in our languages, our cultures, our ways of life. I vote for consciously choosing our behaviors after thinking about their ramifications. So far, I've not been too impressed with the laissez faire method of growing cultures (of people, that is... let's leave my refrigerator out of this). Why not take an active role? If I can boycott company A's products or company B's services, I can certainly boycott emoticons. I am all for changing and improving the language. That's why I don't like emoticons. I don't think that they are an improvement. But I appear to be in the minority on this subject. Robert Neff wrote: "I can write a moving letter and i can also write a humorous one. Therefore, I am one that likes to use emoticons." I don't see the connection here, unless you mean to say that emoticons are necessary to writing letters that are either moving or humorous. I, for one, also occasionally write letters that I hope will be humorous or moving, and they seem to have had that affect on others, judging by their responses. Yet I managed to do it without ever having to resort to emoticons. I still believe that they detract from, rather than enhance, the impact of what you want to say. In fact, many a well-written letter has been diminished (for me) by the addition of an emoticon, a smiley face, or the ubiquitous x's and o's. Wayne wrote: [Re: emotica, ASCII art and accessibility - some suggestions] "No-one 'relies' on them. People use them though, as part of a palette of ways of expressing things. Just because you don't want to extend your personal palette of expression - which is your right - by what right do you suggest that on that basis these things shouldn't be extended - if possible - to be accessible to include everyone." Balderdash. Are you saying that emoticons are not a form of shorthand? That what they represent cannot be expressed in standard English (or French, whatever)? If I make liberal use of acronyms in my prose, am I not relying on them to convey my message? Why would it be different for emoticons? And is using acronyms instead of verbalizing equivalent to extending one's palette? I think not. Emoticons shrink, not extend, the writer's ability to express feeling. Where words have a nearly infinite variety of shades, tints, nuances, emoticons are the equivalent of crayons. I am hardly a Luddite, but I do think that we should consider the ramifications of changes before we all leap on board. Emoticons may have served a purpose in certain type of electronic communication, and they can be amusing (though that has worn rather thin with their repetition), but I see no reason to move them out of their original arena and into the mainstream (alas, too late!). But, getting back to accessiblity and the lexical equivalent of plastic pink flamingos (emoticon-lovers: please retain your senses of humor): With regard to the third sentence: 1. Last I checked I have the right to suggest anything, but maybe I misread the first amendment. 2. My original message in the "emotica" thread was intended to point out that some level of accessibility can be attain even with current technology. An unusual suggestion for someone purportedly trying to prevent some from their God-given right to "see" emoticons. 3. Finally, I did not mean to imply that the current technology was up to the task or that improvements shouldn't be made. I am more interested in ASCII art than emoticons, for obvious reasons, but I have no problem with and would support efforts to, if people insist on using them, at least make them more accessible. I'm just sorry that it is necessary. And I think that some of those who haven't been able to see them may be just as sorry when they dicover how omnipresent they are becoming. Then again, I may be the only person in the known universe who hates emoticons. Just ask my wife. For those who have difficulty reading this without emoticon clues, I provide the following: :) :) :) :( :( ;) ;) :| :| :\ Please scatter these throughout the above message as necessary to make it comprehensible. Just doing my part. Charles Munat Puerto Vallarta
Received on Friday, 15 January 1999 17:26:25 UTC