DOCSLIB.ORG

“Blissfully Happy” Or “Ready to Fight”: Varying Interpretations of Emoji

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Blissfully Happy” Or “Ready to Fight”: Varying Interpretations of Emoji “Blissfully happy” or “ready to fight”: Varying Interpretations of Emoji Hannah Miller, Jacob Thebault-Spieker, Shuo Chang, Isaac Johnson, Loren Terveen, Brent Hecht GroupLens Research, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA {hmiller, thebault, schang, ijohnson, terveen, bhecht}@cs.umn.edu Abstract Most commonly-used emoji are encoded in the Unicode 3 Emoji are commonly used in modern text communication. standard for indexing characters . There are currently 1,282 However, as graphics with nuanced details, emoji may be emoji in the Unicode standard, and for each of these, the open to interpretation. Emoji also render differently on dif- Unicode Consortium provides a code and name (e.g., ferent viewing platforms (e.g., Apple’s iPhone vs. Google’s U+1F600 for “grinning face”) but not the actual graphic. Nexus phone), potentially leading to communication errors. We explore whether emoji renderings or differences across This is the same as is the case for Unicode text characters: platforms give rise to diverse interpretations of emoji. for example, the Unicode character U+0041 indexes the Through an online survey, we solicit people’s interpreta- Latin capital letter ‘A’, but it does not indicate specifically tions of a sample of the most popular emoji characters, each how the ‘A’ should look. Instead, a font renders the rendered for multiple platforms. Both in terms of sentiment Unicode characters a particular way: the appearance of this and semantics, we analyze the variance in interpretation of the emoji, quantifying which emoji are most (and least) like- text that you are reading is dictated by the Times New ly to be misinterpreted. In cases in which participants rated Roman font. the same emoji rendering, they disagreed on whether the Similarly, individual platform vendors such as Apple sentiment was positive, neutral, or negative 25% of the time. and Google create their own rendering for each emoji When considering renderings across platforms, these disa- character they support. This means that the “Grinning greements only increase. Overall, we find significant poten- tial for miscommunication, both for individual emoji render- Face” emoji character has a different appearance when ings and for different emoji renderings across platforms. viewed on an Apple device (e.g., an iPhone) than on a Google device (e.g., a Nexus phone). This is just one ex- ample of two different platform renderings; there are many Introduction platforms that each have their own unique set of emoji ren- derings. Emojipedia—a website serving as an “encyclope- Emoji are “picture characters” or pictographs that are pop- 4 ular in text-based communication. They are commonly dia for emoji”—lists 17 such platforms , which means that used in smartphone texting, social media sharing (e.g., there may be at least 17 different renderings for a given nearly half of all text on Instagram contains emoji (Dimson Unicode emoji character. 2015)), advertising (e.g., Chevy’s press release written An emoji conveys its meaning through its graphic re- entirely in emoji #ChevyGoesEmoji1), and more. Oxford semblance to a physical object (e.g., a smiling face), but it Dictionaries declared the emoji or “face with tears of is not well understood how people interpret the meaning of joy” to be the 2015 “word of the year.” As this is the first emoji. Words have a dictionary definition, but emoji are time that they had selected an emoji, they noted that “emoji nuanced, visually-detailed graphics that may be more open have come to embody a core aspect of living in a digital to interpretation. Furthermore, since emoji render different- world that is visually driven, emotionally expressive, and ly on different platforms, the emoji graphic that is sent by obsessively immediate.”2 one person on one device may be quite different than what is seen by the recipient using a different device. Copyright © 2016, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelli- gence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. 1 http://www.chevrolet.com/crack-the-emoji-code.html 3 http://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html 2 http://time.com/4114886/oxford-word-of-the-year-2015-emoji/ 4 http://emojipedia.org/ We contextualize our analysis in Herbert Clark’s psy- 2001) such as :), have been in use in text-based communi- cholinguistic theory of language use (Clark 1996). In social cation since at least the early 1980s, with numerous studies psychology, a construal is the way that an individual inter- documenting their prevalence in SMS texts (Tossell et al. prets communication. That is, when a speaker communi- 2012), blogs (Huffaker and Calvert 2006), and, more re- cates something, the addressee interprets or construes what cently, Twitter (Park et al. 2013). Much research has fo- s/he believes the speaker to mean. When the addressee’s cused on the role that emoticons can play in complement- interpretation differs from what the speaker intended, a ing traditional text-based computer-mediated communica- misconstrual occurs. In the context of emoji, a speaker is tion (CMC). Notably, Walther and D’Addario (2001) sending emoji to an addressee through a mobile or desktop found that while the emotional valence of text (e.g., “I am platform. Likewise, the addressee is receiving the emoji via happy”) tends to be more important than any accompany- a mobile or desktop platform. In this exchange, miscon- ing emoticons with respect to interpretation, a negative strual can arise from differing interpretations derived from emoticon (e.g., :( “frowny face”) can significantly change either (1) the same rendering, if they each see the same the interpretation of the message. Lo (2008) provided addi- rendering or (2) different renderings, if they each see a tional evidence that emoticons affect interpretation, show- different rendering. ing that the same text can be perceived as either happy or We explore the potential for misconstrual when using sad depending on which emoticon accompanies it. Derks, emoji in communication by evaluating variation in emoji Fischer, and Bos (2008) concluded in a survey of emotion interpretation. Using an online survey, we solicit people’s in CMC that emoticons largely function as non-verbal cues interpretations of a sample of the most popular emoji do in face-to-face communication. Going beyond interpre- Unicode characters. In order to analyze how emoji inter- tation of individual messages, Liebman and Gergle (2016) pretations vary for renderings across platforms, the survey demonstrated that emoticons (along with punctuation) are included renderings of each emoji from five major mobile important in interpersonal relationship development over platforms: Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, and LG. text-based communication. Together, this work emphasizes We identify the variance of interpretation in terms of sen- the importance of emoticons in text-based communication. timent (i.e., how positive is this emoji?) and semantics (i.e., what does this emoji mean?). The Rise of Emoji We find that only 4.5% of emoji symbols we examined Emoji were first created in the late 1990s in Japan but were have consistently low variance in their sentiment interpre- not officially added to the Unicode Standard until 2009 tations. Conversely, in 25% of the cases where participants (Davis and Edberg 2015). They have become quite popular rated the same rendering, they did not agree on whether the since then, with, for example, over 2% of tweets (Novak et sentiment was positive, neutral, or negative. When consid- al. 2015) and nearly half of text on Instagram (Dimson ering renderings across platforms, these disagreements 2015) containing emoji. Emoji are often described as a only increase. For U+1F601 (“grinning face with smiling successor to emoticons (e.g., Novak et al. 2015), and eyes” according to the Unicode Standard), participants Pavalanathan and Eisenstein (2016) found that while emot- described the Google rendering as “blissfully happy” icons are decreasing in popularity on Twitter, emoji are while the exact same Unicode character, but rendered for increasing in popularity and seem to be replacing, not Apple , was described as “ready to fight.” We conclude complementing, emoticons. that emoji usage may be ripe for misconstrued communica- While the large body of work on the role of emoticons in tion and provide implications for design to manage the text-based communication has largely not been replicated likelihood of misinterpretation when using emoji. for emoji, early work indicates that emoji do fulfill much the same role. Kelly and Watts (2015) interviewed a cul- Related Work turally diverse group of people and found that they did use emoji in text-based communication to convey and modify We begin this section with a discussion of the role of emot- the meaning and emotional valence of their words. icons (e.g., :-) or ‘smiley face’ – a precursor to emoji) in the interpretation of text-based communication and how Consistency of Emoticon and Emoji Interpretation emoji relate to emoticons. We then discuss what we know Whereas the display of emoji is platform-dependent, emot- about the consistency of interpretation for emoticons and icons, as text, are displayed relatively consistently. Walther emoji. and D’Addario (2001) found high agreement across their participants (226 mostly male students) around sentiment Emoticons interpretations of the three emoticons that they studied, :-) Emoticons, or “typographic symbols that appear sideways and :-( and ;-). In research on using emoticons in sentiment as resembling facial expressions,” (Walther and D’Addario analysis, Davidov, Tsur, and Rappoport (2010) found that when Amazon Mechanical Turk participants were present- Survey ed with tweets in which emoticons had been removed, they were able to identify with high precision the original emot- We created an online survey to solicit people’s interpreta- icon that had been in the tweet. tions of a sample of emoji Unicode characters, each ren- Less is known about the consistency of emoji interpreta- dered for multiple platforms.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Seeing Emoji Rendering Differences Across Platforms
    What I See is What You Don’t Get: The Effects of (Not) Seeing Emoji Rendering Differences across Platforms HANNAH MILLER HILLBERG, GroupLens Research, University of Minnesota, USA ZACHARY LEVONIAN, GroupLens Research, University of Minnesota, USA DANIEL KLUVER, GroupLens Research, University of Minnesota, USA LOREN TERVEEN, GroupLens Research, University of Minnesota, USA BRENT HECHT, Northwestern University, USA Emoji are popular in digital communication, but they are rendered differently on different viewing platforms (e.g., iOS, Android). It is unknown how many people are aware that emoji have multiple renderings, or whether they would change their emoji-bearing messages if they could see how these messages render on recipients’ devices. We developed software to expose the multi-rendering nature of emoji and explored whether this increased visibility would affect how people communicate with emoji. Through a survey of 710 Twitter users who recently posted an emoji-bearing tweet, we found that at least 25% of respondents were unaware that the emoji they posted could appear differently to their followers. Additionally, after being shown how one of their tweets rendered across platforms, 20% of respondents reported that they would have edited or not sent the tweet. These statistics reflect millions of potentially regretful tweets shared per day because people cannot see emoji rendering differences across platforms. Our results motivate the development of tools that increase the visibility of emoji rendering differences across platforms, and we 1 contribute our cross-platform emoji rendering software to facilitate this effort. 124 CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing KEYWORDS Emoji; computer-mediated communication; cross-platform; rendering; invisibility of system status ACM Reference format: Hannah Miller Hillberg, Zachary Levonian, Daniel Kluver, Loren Terveen and Brent Hecht.
    [Show full text]
  • A Grouplens Perspective
    From: AAAI Technical Report WS-98-08. Compilation copyright © 1998, AAAI (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. RecommenderSystems: A GroupLensPerspective Joseph A. Konstan*t , John Riedl *t, AI Borchers,* and Jonathan L. Herlocker* *GroupLensResearch Project *Net Perceptions,Inc. Dept. of ComputerScience and Engineering 11200 West78th Street University of Minnesota Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN55455 Minneapolis, MN55344 http://www.cs.umn.edu/Research/GroupLens/ http://www.netperceptions.com/ ABSTRACT identifying sets of articles by keyworddoes not scale to a In this paper, wereview the history and research findings of situation in which there are thousands of articles that the GroupLensResearch project I and present the four broad contain any imaginable set of keywords. Taken together, research directions that we feel are most critical for these two weaknesses represented an opportunity for a new recommender systems. type of filtering, that would focus on finding which INTRODUCTION:A History of the GroupLensProject available articles matchhuman notions of quality and taste. The GroupLens Research project began at the Computer Such a system would be able to produce a list of articles Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)Conference in 1992. that each user wouldlike, independentof their content. Oneof the keynote speakers at the conference lectured on a Wedecided to apply our ideas in the domain of Usenet his vision of an emerging information economy,in which news. Usenet screamsfor better information filtering, with most of the effort in the economywould revolve around hundreds of thousands of articles posted daily. Manyof the production, distribution, and consumptionof information, articles in each Usenet newsgroupare on the sametopic, so rather than physical goods and services.
    [Show full text]
  • Pictographs, Ideograms, and Emojis (PIE): a Framework for Empirical Research Using Non-Verbal Cues
    Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | 2021 Pictographs, Ideograms, and Emojis (PIE): A Framework for Empirical Research Using Non-verbal Cues Abstract declared the word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries1. We propose an empirical framework to understand the This was the first time a pictograph was chosen over a impact of non-verbal cues across various research textual word, indicating the rise of ideogrammatic icon contexts. A large percentage of communication on the usage on the Internet. Additionally, in 2016 alone, an Internet uses text-driven non-verbal communication estimated 2.3 trillion mobile messages used emojis2. cues often referred to as emojis. Our framework EmoJis encourage positive behavior, such as proposes two types of factors to understand the impact increased purchase intention online [7], but are also used of emojis. The first type consists of pictographs, for negative purposes, such as online advertising by ideograms, and emojis (PIE) factors such as usage, human traffickers [8]. Moreover, under different valence, position, and skin tone, and the second type contexts, emojis display different emotions [9]. This consists of contextual factors depending on the research varied usage of emojis across different domains raises context, such as fake news, which has high social several questions about their impact and purpose. Given impact. We discuss how the effect of PIE factors and their popularity and diverse purposes, it is important to contextual factors can be used to measure belief, trust, study the usage of this form of communication in greater reputation, and intentions across these contexts. detail. We propose a framework to study the impact of emojis across several domains using high level factors 1.
    [Show full text]
  • New Emoji Requests from Twitter Users: When, Where, Why, and What We Can Do About Them
    1 New Emoji Requests from Twitter Users: When, Where, Why, and What We Can Do About Them YUNHE FENG, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA ZHENG LU, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA WENJUN ZHOU, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA ZHIBO WANG, Wuhan University, China QING CAO∗, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA As emojis become prevalent in personal communications, people are always looking for new, interesting emojis to express emotions, show attitudes, or simply visualize texts. In this study, we collected more than thirty million tweets mentioning the word “emoji” in a one-year period to study emoji requests on Twitter. First, we filtered out bot-generated tweets and extracted emoji requests from the raw tweets using a comprehensive list of linguistic patterns. To our surprise, some extant emojis, such as fire and hijab , were still frequently requested by many users. A large number of non-existing emojis were also requested, which were classified into one of eight emoji categories by Unicode Standard. We then examined patterns of new emoji requests by exploring their time, location, and context. Eagerness and frustration of not having these emojis were evidenced by our sentiment analysis, and we summarize users’ advocacy channels. Focusing on typical patterns of co-mentioned emojis, we also identified expressions of equity, diversity, and fairness issues due to unreleased but expected emojis, and summarized the significance of new emojis on society. Finally, time- continuity sensitive strategies at multiple time granularity levels were proposed to rank petitioned emojis by the eagerness, and a real-time monitoring system to track new emoji requests is implemented.
    [Show full text]
  • A Recommender System for Groups of Users
    PolyLens: A Recommender System for Groups of Users Mark O’Connor, Dan Cosley, Joseph A. Konstan, and John Riedl Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA {oconnor;cosley;konstan;riedl}@cs.umn.edu Abstract. We present PolyLens, a new collaborative filtering recommender system designed to recommend items for groups of users, rather than for individuals. A group recommender is more appropriate and useful for domains in which several people participate in a single activity, as is often the case with movies and restaurants. We present an analysis of the primary design issues for group recommenders, including questions about the nature of groups, the rights of group members, social value functions for groups, and interfaces for displaying group recommendations. We then report on our PolyLens prototype and the lessons we learned from usage logs and surveys from a nine-month trial that included 819 users. We found that users not only valued group recommendations, but were willing to yield some privacy to get the benefits of group recommendations. Users valued an extension to the group recommender system that enabled them to invite non-members to participate, via email. Introduction Recommender systems (Resnick & Varian, 1997) help users faced with an overwhelming selection of items by identifying particular items that are likely to match each user’s tastes or preferences (Schafer et al., 1999). The most sophisticated systems learn each user’s tastes and provide personalized recommendations. Though several machine learning and personalization technologies can attempt to learn user preferences, automated collaborative filtering (Resnick et al., 1994; Shardanand & Maes, 1995) has become the preferred real-time technology for personal recommendations, in part because it leverages the experiences of an entire community of users to provide high quality recommendations without detailed models of either content or user tastes.
    [Show full text]
  • Ccnso Study Group on the Use of Emoji in Second Level Domains - Report and Findings
    ccNSO Study Group on the use of Emoji in Second Level Domains - Report and Findings 1 V20190226 Table of Contents Background 3 2. Evolution of domain names which include emoji 5 Definition of emoji 5 History of domain names which include emoji 6 Registering a domain name which include an emoji 8 Registries offering domain names which include emoji 8 Registrars offering domain names which include emoji 9 3. Emoji domain names – Issues and Consideration 10 Recommendations of the SAC 095 Advisory: 10 Observations: 13 Conclusions: TBD 13 Annex A – Request for Information 14 Annex B – History of Emoji 15 Annex C – Implementation of Emoji 19 Annex D – Details regarding registries which accept the registration of domain names which include emoji 21 Composition of second level domain names accepted by registries which register domain names which include emoji 21 WHOIS and Registration of domain names which include emoji 23 Registration Policies/Terms of Use and similar information for domains which include emoji 25 Annex E - Glossary 26 2 V20190226 Executive Summary (TBC at the end) 1. Background Since 2001 there has been community interest in the use of emoji in domain names and some country code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) currently allow domain names with emoji to be registered at the second level. The SSAC analyzed the use of emoji for domain names and published the findings in the SAC 095 advisory1 on 25 May 2017. The SAC 095 advisory recommends not allowing the use of emoji in TLDs, and discourages their use in a domain name in any of its labels.
    [Show full text]
  • Community, Impact and Credit: Where Should I Submit My Papers?
    Panels February 23–27, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA Community, Impact and Credit: Where should I submit my papers? Abstract Aaron Halfaker R. Stuart Geiger We (the authors of CSCWs program) have finite time and GroupLens Research School of Information energy that can be invested into our publications and the University of Minnesota University of CA, Berkeley research communities we value. While we want our work [email protected] [email protected] to have the most impact possible, we also want to grow Cliff Lampe Loren Terveen and support productive research communities within School of Information GroupLens Research which to have this impact. This panel discussion explores Michigan State University University of Minnesota the costs and benefits of submitting papers to various [email protected] [email protected] tiers of conferences and journals surrounding CSCW and Amy Bruckman Brian Keegan reflects on the value of investing hours into building up a College of Computing Northeastern University research community. Georgia Inst. of Technology [email protected] [email protected] Author Keywords Aniket Kittur Geraldine Fitzpatrick community; credit; impact; publishing; peer review HCI Institute Vienna University of Carnegie Mellon University Technology ACM Classification Keywords [email protected] geraldine.fi[email protected] H.5.0. [Information Interfaces and Presentation (e.g. HCI)]: General Introduction We (the authors of CSCWs program) have finite time and energy that can be invested into our publications and the research communities we value. In order to allow our work to have an impact, we must also grow and maintain Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
    [Show full text]
  • Improvements in Holistic Recommender System Research
    Improvements in Holistic Recommender System Research A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Daniel Allen Kluver IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Joseph A. Konstan August, 2018 c Daniel Allen Kluver 2018 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my family, my friends, my advisers John Riedl and Joseph Konstan, my colleagues, both at GroupLens research and at Macalester College, and everyone else who believed in me and supported me along the way. Your support meant everything when I couldn’t support myself. Your belief meant everything when I couldn’t believe in myself. I couldn’t have done this without your help. i Abstract Since the mid 1990s, recommender systems have grown to be a major area of de- ployment in industry, and research in academia. A through-line in this research has been the pursuit, above all else, of the perfect algorithm. With this admirable focus has come a neglect of the full scope of building, maintaining, and improving recom- mender systems. In this work I outline a system deployment and a series of offline and online experiments dedicated to improving our holistic understanding of recommender systems. This work explores the design, algorithms, early performance, and interfaces of recommender systems within the scope of how they are interconnected with other aspects of the system. This work explores many indivisual aspects of a recommender system while keeping in mind how they are connected to other aspects of
    [Show full text]
  • Truth and Lies of What People Are Really Thinking
    Dedication For Lex and Stella Epigraph Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth —Falsely attributed to Marcus Aurelius (author unknown) Contents Cover Title Page Dedication Epigraph Introduction Part One Genuine Deceptions 1 Body Language Lies 2 Powerful Thinking 3 Mind Your Judgments 4 Scan for Truth Part Two Dating 5 They’re Totally Checking Me Out! 6 Playing Hard-to-Get 7 Just Feeling Sorry for Me 8 I’m Being Ghosted 9 What a Complete Psycho! 10 They Are Running the Show 11 I’m Going to Pay for That! 12 They Are So Mad at Me 13 A Lying Cheat? 14 Definitely into My Friend 15 A Match Made in Heaven? 16 They Are So Breaking Up! Part Three Friends and Family 17 Thick as Thieves 18 My New Bff? 19 Fomo 20 Control Freak 21 Too Close for Comfort 22 They’ll Never Fit in with My Family 23 House on Fire! 24 I Am Boring the Pants off Them 25 Lying Through Their Teeth 26 Persona Non Grata 27 Invisible Me Part Four Working Life 28 I Aced That Interview—So, Where’s the Job Offer? 29 They Hate My Work 30 Big Dog 31 Never Going to See Eye to Eye 32 Cold Fish 33 They’re Gonna Blow! 34 This Meeting Is a Waste of Time 35 Looks Like a Winning Team 36 So, You Think You’re the Boss 37 Hand in the Cookie Jar Summary Bonus Bluff Learn more Acknowledgments Notes About the Authors Praise for Truth & Lies Also by Mark Bowden Copyright About the Publisher Introduction WE CAN ALL RECALL EXAMPLES when our sense of what another person was thinking turned out to be the truth.
    [Show full text]
  • 95% of Internet Users Have Used an Emoji. Over 10 Billion Emojis Are Sent Daily
    95% Of Internet Users Have Used An Emoji. Over 10 Billion Emojis Are Sent Daily July 17th recognizes World Emoji Day and many of the world’s symbolic icons for digital calendars. The day encourages us to use emojis to send unique messages. Before the emoji, there were emoticons. Emoticons (emotion + icon) was developed as an expression of emotions in the cold hard texts that were devoid of them. Emoji, a Japanese expression, roughly means “picture word” and was created by Shigetaka Kurita in 1990. While working for the Japanese telecom company NTT Docomo, Kurita would design these picture words as a feature on their pagers to make them more appealing to teens. The word “Emoji” is derived from the Japanese words e (for picture) and moji (for character), apparently the seeming connection to the words emotion and emoticon are purely incidental! The release of the first iPhone by Apple in 2007 had an emoji keyboard embedded into the phone to nab the Japanese market. While not intended for U.S. users to find, they did and quickly figured out how to use it. Every year new emojis (both emoji and emojis are acceptable plural forms of the word) are developed. The emojipedia.org keeps track of all the emoji updates across all platforms and operating systems. Over 1800 emojis cover much more than just emotions. Over 900M emojis are sent every day without text on Facebook Messengerr More than 700M emojis are used in Facebook posts every day. The biggest day for emoji usage on Messenger is New Year’s Eve For 2020, 117 new emojis are to be introduced, including a toothbrush, bubble tea, Transgender flag, black cat and more.
    [Show full text]
  • User Session Identification Based on Strong Regularities in Inter-Activity
    User Session Identification Based on Strong Regularities in Inter-activity Time Aaron Halfaker Os Keyes Daniel Kluver Wikimedia Foundation Wikimedia Foundation GroupLens Research [email protected] [email protected] University of Minnesota [email protected] Jacob Thebault-Spieker Tien Nguyen Kenneth Shores GroupLens Research GroupLens Research GroupLens Research University of Minnesota University of Minnesota University of Minnesota [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Anuradha Uduwage Morten Warncke-Wang GroupLens Research GroupLens Research University of Minnesota University of Minnesota [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION Session identification is a common strategy used to develop In 2012, we had an idea for a measurement strategy that metrics for web analytics and behavioral analyses of user- would bring insight and understanding to the nature of par- facing systems. Past work has argued that session identifica- ticipation in an online community. While studying partic- tion strategies based on an inactivity threshold is inherently ipation in Wikipedia, the open, collaborative encyclopedia, arbitrary or advocated that thresholds be set at about 30 we found ourselves increasingly curious about the amount of minutes. In this work, we demonstrate a strong regularity time that volunteer contributors invested into the encyclope- in the temporal rhythms of user initiated events across sev- dia's construction. Past work measuring editor engagement eral different domains of online activity (incl. video gaming, relied on counting the number of contributions made by a search, page views and volunteer contributions). We de- user1, but we felt that the amount of time editors spent scribe a methodology for identifying clusters of user activity editing might serve as a more appropriate measure.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of Emoji
    The Rise of Emoji 絵文字 Internationalization and Unicode Conference IUC 40 Alolita Sharma Board Director at Unicode Consortium Emoji has taken over the Web ● The word Emoji comes from Japanese ● Emoji were initially used by Japanese mobile operators, NTT DoCoMo, KDDI, and Origins of Emoji SoftBank Mobile ● First emoji was created in 1998 絵文字 in Japan by Shigetaka Kurita at NTT DoCoMo 絵 (e ≅ picture) ● Kurita created the first 180 emoji for browsing, doing email 文 (mo ≅ writing) on mobile phones 字 (ji ≅ character) The Unicode Standard started encoding Emoji in 2010 ● Unicode 6.0 added 722 characters ○ 114 characters were from the original Japanese character set which had been added earlier to Unicode and Emoji Unicode 5.2 ○ 608 new characters were also added ● Unicode 7.0 added 250 characters, many from Webdings and Wingdings fonts ● Unicode 8 added 41 Emoji ○ 1,051 codepoints across 22 code blocks ● Unicode 9 added 72 Emoji ● Emoji Stats as of 11/2016 ○ 1394 Emoji ○ 435 Modified Emoji ○ 22 Sequences ○ 1851 Total Unicode and Emoji ● Unicode 10 Emoji candidates list ○ 8 Emoji candidates for consideration so far ○ http://unicode.org/emoji/charts/emoji-candidates.ht ml ● Emoji Unicode Technical Report 51 http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/ ● Emoji Chart http://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html How are people using Emoji? ● An Emoji is worth a thousand words! ● Emoji enables users to represent interests - cultural, entertainment, How are people regional, national, events, sports, diversity using Emoji? ● Emoji enables users express reactions - pleased, happy, sad, angry ● Emoji enables diverse people to connect across languages and cultures People and organizations are using emoji everywhere - on search, social media, messaging platforms, email ● News - local, national, global, disasters How are people using Emoji? ● Current events - public and personal News and Current Events Election campaigns and voting Restaurant reviews and menus Advertising Marketing and Branding Financial How are platforms leveraging Emoji? Search: Google Google with Emoji! ○ E.g.
    [Show full text]