←back to thread

178 points dgl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.374s | source
Show context
strogonoff ◴[] No.44364169[source]
The issue with the emoji, at least in their current depictions, is that they are guaranteed to be higher in visual hierarchy (among the few things of undying relevance that we were taught in university) than any surrounding text. They stand out thanks to their different nature and a lot of visual complexity (intricate features).

Good visual hierarchy means you end up looking first at what is important. Good visual hierarchy sets correct context.

Bad visual hierarchy adds mental overhead. Bad visual hierarchy means that any time you look, even when you don’t consciously realize it, you end up scanning through hierarchy offenders, discarding them, then getting to the important part, and re-acknowledging offenders when it comes to them in appropriate context. This can happen multiple times: first for the screen as a whole, then when you focus on a smaller part, etc. As we encounter common visual hierarchy offenders more and more often, we train ourselves to discard them quicker, but it is never completely free of cost.

There are strategic uses for symbols in line with visual hierarchy principles. For example, using emoji as an icon in an already busy GUI is something I do as well.

However, none of those apply in terminal’s visual language of text and colours, and unlike a more or less static artifact fully under designer’s control (like a magazine or a GUI) in a fluid terminal screen where things shift around and combine in different ways it is almost impossible for software author to correctly predict what importance what has to me.

Those CLI tool authors who like to signify errors with bright emoji: have you thought that my screen can be big, and after I ran your program N times troubleshooting something there can be N bright red exclamation marks on my screen, N-1 of which are not even remotely close to where the message of interest is? have you thought that your output can coexist in a multiplexer with output from another program, which I am more interested in? should other programs compete for attention with brighter emojis? and so on.

As to joyful touches, which are of course appreciated, those can be added with the old-style text-based emoticons.

replies(7): >>44364628 #>>44364715 #>>44365364 #>>44365386 #>>44366298 #>>44366575 #>>44366806 #
simonask ◴[] No.44364715[source]
Strong "get off my lawn" vibe here.

The placement in the visual hierarchy of emojis is their main feature. I think it's totally backwards to say that the visual hierarchy of terminal UIs must remain constrained to text with colors.

I'm sorry, but it's absolutely just as valid to indicate an error or other status with a bright emoji as with bright red text and exclamation points - as long as there is some support for greppability as well (when relevant).

Your point about multiplexers etc. apply to anything in the terminal, including bright red text.

replies(1): >>44364818 #
1. strogonoff ◴[] No.44364818[source]
You are free to disagree.

> Your point about multiplexers etc. apply to anything in the terminal, including bright red text.

You did not read my comment. There is a concept of visual language. I specifically said that text colour (along with background colour, text style, etc.) constitutes the visual language of the terminal.

Bright red text follows general complexity pattern of text, with a distinguishing quality. Let’s call it standout factor x2, maybe x3 if you see in colour and red means danger. An inserted full colour image full of tiny details falls out of it completely, especially compared to Latin. The question of distinguishing qualities does not even make sense. It is text x10000.

Yes, red text in the next pane will also be slightly distracting, but it is nothing like a bunch of images sprinkled around my buffer.