Writers have relied on their words only to convey emotions for a very long time. It's only recently that we've been drawing faces next to our words instead picking good ones.

That's really not true.

We've been drawing faces and other emoticon-like symbols next to our words long before the internet. (Think informal writing like postcards or notes.) People have illustrated their writing for even longer. (Think medieval manuscripts, as an extreme example.)

Even canonically great writers don't (as a whole) limit themselves to words- they write plays that include stage directions, they write poetry that plays with layout and punctuation, they write songs that include melody and instrumental parts.

It's really only some forms of formal writing that limits itself to words to convey emotions.

Most people on the Internet aren't writers, and don't want to spend long minutes of reading text to get an emotional reaction that they can get in an eyeblink by looking at an emoticon. Literary expression of emotion isn't something easily comparable to emoji.

Eh, I could just write [wink], or [SAD FACE].

That's exactly how emoticon placeholders worked in the days of internet forums. Things like :grin:, at least in my mind, get associated with images though; the emoticons have likely already corrupted my brain enough for that to happen.

Emoji are just the evolution of that idea. They're more pleasing to look at, as well.

Yeah, but now we have to think about it. "Hey, do we have a test for when someone types in an emoji into their credit card number?". Punks.

That's a funny example considering an input validation routine for credit cards should automatically throw out any input consisting of more than numerals and spaces. You don't need to test for Unicode or emoji when there are only 11 possibly valid characters in the input.

On a tangent, I find it interesting how many people who came up during such a period of profound change as the computing revolution, still have problems with other changes.

Yes, but the code that actually checks for the valid characters can bomb if Unicode blows its brains out.

;) and :( are universal. Yours requires English.

[guiñando] [CARA_TRISTE]

Now, what the fuck did I say? Can you figure it out? What if I chose different words?

Writers and their targeted readers have two things that aren't present in internet communication: time and room.

If i was to explain my emotional state and intent on every other message i send, chatting would become rather laborious and having a fluent conversation much much harder.

Indicating that beside my contrary opinion my critique of your comment isn't a try to bluntly dismiss and educate but rather an act of wanting to partake in the conversation in a benevolent way takes me a good third of what I am writing. Or i could just :)

I'd say text is not specifically a poor medium as much as an inefficient medium for conveying emotions.

Text can convey fantastically deep and moving emotions. It just takes a more investment on part of both the author and reader than images.

Well the mobile keyboard does not allow you to express yourself in great detail.

So you just litter your desk with about a dozen emoji-ized keyboards like Tom Scott did (as a stunt)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AtBE9BOvvk

Because writers invest time into using the right words especially since they're going to be published somewhere. You can surely see the difference between this and texting, which is supposed to be quick.

Hieroglyphics

Did people write pictograms in handwritten letters? We had a much easier capability for emoji-like pictograms in the past, but I don't recall people using it.

To somewhat paraphrase my other comment in the thread: Most people on the Internet aren't writing personal letters, and most writing on the Internet isn't deeply personal writing from someone you know and have ane motional bond with. Deeply personal writing isn't something easily comparable to emoji, either.

Fair, but handwritten letters were much longer (because that's what made sense when the round trip time was measured in days/weeks). With multiple paragraphs you can build up a rich emotional context for whatever you're saying.

I've literally had people think I was rude and arrogant because I ended my sentences with full stops.

In informal online writing, using full stops has become an optional choice, which means that using full stops requires that you choose to do so, which means that presumably you have something to communicate by that choice.

Generally speaking, using full stops is a sign that one is Very Serious; it's the textual equivalent of how, when someone is angry, they will close doors harder.

That is part of a real convention in active use, influenced by the medium of text on phones and computers. People replace full stops with newlines/message breaks, and over time they start to repurpose the now-unused punctuation for emphasis.

It's not surprising that new linguistic conventions cause confusion, but that doesn't make them something to deride.

Related: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2015/dec/09...

What will be next?

I don't know. Visual input has the greatest bandwidth and the least latency when it comes to transferring emotions, so pictograms are very effective when it comes to non-technical solutions. When it comes to technical ones, maybe a brain-to-brain interfaces capable of transferring emotions directly to one's mind could eventually challenge the visual interface humans have naturally.