🚀 go-pugleaf

Heh heh...  You *think* smileys are hard to misinterpret!  But is this true?
I had unquestioningly assumed so until you brought it up.
Now I am not so sure.  It seems easy to believe that, 
by reducing the number of 'facial expressions' to a very small number, 
the writer will be able to 'assume an expression' that will be universally
understood.  I see at least two problems with this:
(1) What if there is no icon that accurately represents how I feel?
If this happens, then no matter which one I pick, it will be intrinsically
in error by some amount, right at the outset, no matter who interprets it.
(2) There really is no basis for believing that the emoticons are universally
understood.  Take the smiley -- ":-)".  (Ignore for the moment that I use the
"nasal dialect"!)  Suppose I say:
	This will cause the end of civilization!  :-)
Does this mean that I am happy that civilization will end?
Does it mean that I am happy that "This" will be cause thereof?
Does it mean I'm happy about some side effect (e.g. no more styrofoam cups)?
Does it mean that I'm just in a good mood, and perhaps I'm joking, but
I'm not a winking sort of person?
I'm afraid that this is not a very imaginitive example, 
and does not do justice to the sort of different slants
that readers can impose on emoticons depending on their own background,
their own mood, etc.

This is not to say that emoticons are not an improvement over natural
facial expressions and body language -- perhaps they are.
But I think that there is ample room for miscommunication in them,
and we should not fall into the trap of believing that the use thereof
will cause emotional miscommunication to disappear.

-- Kenn Goutal
...!linus!intrbas!kenn
...!uunet!intrbas!kenn