@Mark Simonson There's no technical reason the style of emojis couldn't be matched to a typeface. Matching symbols to typefaces is already done on a smaller scale with characters like hearts and fleurons. Imagine you were tasked with designing hearts and fleurons for Sabon, Didot, Futura and Franklin Gothic. You'd design them in a way that stylistically harmonizes with each typeface. Then, the client requests 3 more symbols: an apple, a happy face and a birthday cake. Next, they request colors, only for the hearts and fleurons. You'd create palettes that suit each typeface and determine what kind of gradients are needed, if any. Now they want colors for the other symbols. I'm sure some designers would bail out on such a project but if you can get that far, the rest is a matter of scale. At that point, your sample characters could be handed over to a competent art department who could fill out the rest of the emoji set in the same style.
Emojis are crude tools because there are no emoji choices for designers. Picture a banal, fully-saturated-green cartoon leaf with airbrush shading and expressionless black outlines. What if that was the fleuron included with every font in existence? Gross, right? Well that's emoji in 2018. The same emoji glyphs are used for children, adults, serious themes and silly themes. They're accompanied by arbitrary typefaces in styles determined by phone manufacturers. We've yet to see a tasteful application of emoji but I think the potential is there.
Maybe emoji is a fad but nobody knows. We're at such a rudimentary stage that it's impossible to determine that. It's all down to the younger generation. They'll determine whether or not they're still around in a century.
I agree with the idea that letting go of the idea of strokes can give a designer a different perspective. Thinking in terms of shapes rather than strokes is something I picked up in Counterpunch. Consider Braggadocio which has very little that anyone could call a stroke. But to take it to the extreme and tell people to never think about strokes is ludicrous because some typefaces are nothing but strokes. You can't make a thin, monoline calligraphic typeface and deny the stroke exists. It's just a histrionic statement.
I'm not trying to cause trouble. I just know it's a matter of time before some bombastic statement about strokes is going to show up in a random thread so I figured we may as well give it its own thread. And Hrant, why don't you start a thread about your descenders theory so we don't have to hear about in any thread that dares to mention a descender?
If you want to talk about it, go ahead. But I feel sorry for students who come here expecting something helpful and they get these up-is-down, black-is-white declamatory statements. And nobody wants to argue with it in the middle of a student's thread. Nobody likes it. It's the reason I left Typophile. It's the reason I'm looking elsewhere. Just stop it. There's nothing wrong with having ideas that are different. Stop shoehorning them into threads as every opportunity. So many times I've seen a thread where someone has made the mistake of mentioning the wrong thing and bang, next message is Hrant with something about descender frequency AGAIN. Make all the new threads you want but please stop taking advantage of people's reluctance to contradict you in the middle of a thread about something else.