Now to get a bit more theoretical on the emoji reaction topic.
There's a chapter in Cosmicomics by Italo Calvino that I think is quite salient. The interpretation most relevant here is that we make marks and those marks have a unique quality that is distinguishable from their meaning. The meaning of a mark is fundamentally distinct from the mark itself. While this might be the case, I tend to disagree with this sentiment in the functional sense; most marks that we make do have some symbolic or archetypal significance through our interpretation of them in a specific and understood context. An example might be the cross symbol (✝): it's a mark deeply tied to a meaning in Christian religion and the symbol itself invokes a meaning. However, the main problem seems valid; there are plenty of instances of disagreement about the meaning of a mark probably because there is no inherent, contained meaning in the mark itself. The swastika (卐) is a very good example of this; it's a symbol deeply rooted in a number of religious practices including Hinduism and Buddhism but is also perhaps the most defining symbol of the Nazis. Use in different contexts means the mark takes very different meanings because there is not one meaning inherent to the mark itself.
In the second point in my last post, I explore this idea a bit in relation to emoji reactions. Intent is a more specific way of saying meaning in the context of a conversational space. So the intent of a reaction needs to be understood in order for the reaction to have a productive and expressive value to others. Perhaps the :) emoji can be understood in many different ways in different contexts. A :) can be genuine, sarcastic, or meant to infuriate. The meaning of the symbol can be used in a way that's more meta; meanings are contrasted against each other to create more complex interpreted meanings. This is the domain of the meme.
I tend to think that this is the best and worst aspect to reactions. On one hand it allows meanings to be used in increasingly complex ways to get around or subvert the intended use of an emoji. Seeing the 🤣 emoji used in response to nearly any statement that's not serious means the symbol looses it's value in conversation. Seeing it used in an unexpected and sarcastic way can give the emoji it's own quality and meaning that's beyond the face value of 🤣. On the other hand it can erode others' understanding of the symbol and seed confusion or unnecessary clutter into a conversation (why would they react with 🐔??).
Reducing the number of possible emojis that can be used to react (iMessages only gives six reactions, Facebook and others are similar) is one way that others have tried to sidestep this problem. Only choosing reactions that have somewhat more well-agreed upon meanings means that you're never even given the opportunity to react to my message with 🐔, but have to go with a generic ❤️. Too bad. The layered, expressive quality to these symbols is removed in favor of clarity. But is reducing the reaction set down to just six possible options really the best way to accomplish this goal? I don't think it is, and I don't think that that Apple really thought it was either, which is why we have the absolute abomination that is Memoji. Surely there is a better way to design reactions that are more expressive without needing to resort to making my facial expressions puppeteer a cartoon emoji face.
There are two design goals I think are worth working towards:
- Make reactions expressive. They should be able to be used in many possible ways so the conversational space is kept rich and layered. A good test of expressiveness is if reactions are meme-able.
- Make reactions productive. A reaction should be able to serve a purpose. This is the primary reason they've been implemented in so many systems. They should be able to replace certain phrases or words that hold little value on their own other than as a marker to indicate to others that you've read something and perhaps agree with it.
I don't think these two goals are in as much tension as may initially appear. Reactions are highly contextual, so the same affordance can be used in both serious and non-serious ways. The primary challenge is to design the system such that sitting between these two modes doesn't result in a less than ideal experience.