Reading this article sent me on a whirlwind of Wikipediaing and Googling...just like Unicode itself is vastly complicated, so is the thought and design behind emojis, which have their own technical subcommittee [0], currently chaired by Apple and Google employees.<p>One of the best articles I came across is from Huffington Post, before the inclusion of multi-colored faces in 2015:<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/27/emoji-meaning_n_5530638.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/27/emoji-meaning_n_553...</a><p>I knew that trying to design universally readable iconography is an essentially impossible task in itself, but the article brings up a lot of other interesting issues, such as the worry that Apple might take it upon themselves to revamp their emojis which were designed before the "flat" days:<p>> <i>By comparison, Apple’s iconic emoji are horribly out of fashion. Its icons have shadows, depth and a three-dimensional look that’s a holdover from the Steve Jobs era of skeuomorphic design. Flat illustration free of texture or highlights is now de rigeur. Apple has already abandoned the faux-wood paneling and leather elsewhere in its software, and its emoji could change at any time — potentially a rude shock for those who’ve come to identify with the brand’s symbols. “I kind of hope they don’t [change it],” said Van Lancker.</i><p>Even the HTML of the article itself contains interesting insights, especially about web production and the challenges of digital preservation. I thought at first that, in a decade, the opening paragraph might completely lose its meaning...but then I opened up my web inspector:<p><a href="http://imgur.com/YUVtwPe" rel="nofollow">http://imgur.com/YUVtwPe</a><p>[0] <a href="http://unicode.org/emoji/" rel="nofollow">http://unicode.org/emoji/</a>