The Unicode consortium, as they describe themselves is a “non-proﬁt corporation devoted to developing, maintaining, and promoting software internationalization standards and data, particularly the Unicode Standard, which speciﬁes the representation of text in all modern software products and standards”1.
In plain words, and regarding what concern type designers, they assign a code called Unicode to glyphs allowing the software to identify a particular glyph when typed by the user. By giving a code to a glyph they make a much deeper decision than what the people involved may realise. They have the power of giving voice to many people and to silent the voice of many others. In lots of cases that has even a political implication. Therefore, they have an enormous responsibility and they should do enough research to make the right decisions on how they assign those codes and also how they organise them in different code charts.
These decisions affect specially minority languages, since they have no ofﬁcial status, and thus they are very weak. Unicode Consortium at the moment is far from helping the preservation of languages, which are endangered, but rather helping them to disappear by ignoring their needs. Many languages have fascinating stories about human history, they are our cultural patrimony and they deserve respect and effort to be preserved.
In this article we give a few examples of what we consider wrong decisions that the Consortium has made regarding minority languages. There are three common mistakes we will talk about in order to explain their consequences. However, they are mere examples we use for illustrating those problems, we have not analysed the entire Unicode Charts. The issues shown here affect the Latin part of Unicode; further investigation should be carried out regarding other scripts.
Miss-representation of shapes
There is a glyph called “ldot” (uni 013F and uni 0140), which is completely miss-represented, even the name is misleading. The letter coded is just the representation in half of its actual letterform, which is formed by an l a period (cantered between the two) and another l (l·l, it is used in Catalan). The name ldot responds to its visual representation in Unicode l·, which unfortunately has become the standard way in which type designers draw this letter. The letter has a different sound than a single l or than a double l, it is an l germination, so a “long l” sound. This is a fairly common letter used in a language that though it has ofﬁcial status of minority language it is used by 11,530,160 speakers according to Wikipedia (data from ethnologue.com, 2009), and that has become important enough to be covered by numerous software companies such as Adobe. The problems this create is obvious, we end up with lots of badly design letters, which deprives readers of typographic quality.
1. Designing l· as it is now represented but taking special care with the spacing of this glyph followed by another l.
2. Designing the right shape l·l with the right placement of the dot. We recommend this solution, which is more faithful to reality.
This are, of course, “patch” solutions, the real solution is to have the right shape and name attached to its Unicode number, and that only can be sorted by the Unicode Consortium. Another issue surrounding this glyph is the fact of not having the letter itself in the keyboard layout, but this issue has to do with economic reasons, which are much harder to sort out, and out of the scope of this article. As things are now a contextual alternate OT feature is needed in order to obtain the right glyph when typing it.2
Languages with glyphs without code
Guaraní is a South American language spoken by 4,850,000 people3. It is ofﬁcial language in Corrientes (Argentina), Paraguay and Bolivia, and also spoken in Brazil and Uruguay. Unfortunately, it has three missing glyphs in the Unicode chards. Gtilde, gtilde and Puso, which represents a glottal interruption, the shape of this glyph is similar to apostrophe though it is located lower and has slightly different shape (according to Paraguayan type designer Juan Heilborn).
This makes it very difﬁcult to typeset text since the computer is not capable to recognise those glyphs. The only way to access these glyphs is through the glyph palette in professional typesetting and graphic design software and through insert symbol option in text editors. Professional typesetters might know that but for the majority of people this is a big barrier, which they probably do not know how to trespass. The consequence of this is that people choose to use the big language, which has no problem to typeset. Young generations do not have the possibility of using their own language in digital environment. That helps the gradual abandoning of the use of the affected language, and it puts it in a position of danger of disappearance.
Languages having half of the language in one chart and the rest in an obscure one
This is the case of some of the Sámi languages, Sámi languages are the languages used by the indigenous people of Sámpi, which is the northern part of the European continent in across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. There are approximately 25,000 speakers4 of different Sámi languages and decreasing.
The problem some of the Sámi languages suffer is that they have one of their speciﬁc glyphs covered in the Latin Extended-A Chart, which is covered by plenty of typefaces. However, they have missing glyphs to be fully supported. For instance Skolt Sámi, has some glyphs with an assigned code but in Charts that are not so commonly covered by type designers. The letters ǥ, ǩ, ǧ, Ʒ and ǯ are in the Latin Extended-B chart. To make matters worse essential punctuation mark ʹ is in a more remote location, in the spacing modifier letters. This limits the amount of typefaces covering the languages drastically reducing their typographic choice to a few user interface typefaces which design is specific for this use alone. Meaning they do not have typefaces for children’s books, newspapers, magazines, etc.
Evidently this little attention paid to so-called minority languages5 is due mostly to economic reasons. Software developers, phone makers, computer manufacturers, etc. have no interest in satisfying the needs of what for them is just a tiny niche in a global market. It is then the responsibility of the Unicode Consortium, to fully represent all languages without discriminating minorities. It is not tolerable that a smiley face (or any other unnecessary or little important dingbat) has a code, and glyphs needed to help survive endangered languages do not have one. It shows either a lack of respect, ignorance or conscious discriminating policy on their part. On the other hand, type designers and foundries have also a part of responsibility when deciding character sets and when designing glyphs which they are not native users. Designers need to do research on unknown characters and diacritics, if possible consulting native users. We also need to stop following blindly Unicode Charts. Why not to ignore charts and misleading nomenclature in order to fully cover languages, which need our compromise regardless of commercial interests?
- http://www.unicode.org/consortium/consort.html [↩]
- Please note there are two ways in which people will type this: l period l or l periodcentered l. [↩]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarani_language [↩]
- http://www.omniglot.com/writing/saami.htm [↩]
- This is a concept that could be discussed, languages with little or no official status (not recognised by a State) are considered minority languages. However, lots of them are spoken by millions of people, in some cases are superior in number of speakers than some languages with official recognition. [↩]