Origins

• The history of smileys is in dispute with several people mentioned as the originator of the concept. Scott E. Fahlman is credited with developing the idea on 19 September, 1982 while at Carnegie Mellon University. Computer bulletin boards were just beginning to take shape along with primitive email capabilities between colleges campuses. It was sometimes difficult to tell what was meant as a joke or a satirical remark. Posters would have feelings hurt, or tempers engaged when the meaning of a post was ambiguous.
  
  

The Initial Proposal

• While participating in an online conversation about how to best express up front that a particular post was actually a joke or not to be taken seriously, Fahlman suggested:
  
  "I propose that the following character sequence for joke markers: :-) Read it sideways."
  
  He went on to add that the sequence :-( could be used to denote a serious topic. By the next day other students were already using the convention in their posts.
  
  

Widespread Acceptance

• Within a few weeks, the smileys began spreading to colleges nationwide as more and more emails were exchanged. By November of that year, other smileys were making appearances, such as <:-) for dumb questions. Within a very short time, smileys became an accepted, standard way of communicating in a totally text based digital environment. People were inventing hundreds of new smileys and collections were made of the best ones. The original smiley was cut down to the even easier froggy face of :), and expressing shock was easy with :-o. You could wink at someone with ;-) or tell them you had glasses, a moustache and a beard with 8-{)>.
  
  

Emoticon Research

• The subject of emoticons as communications has generated a number of scholarly papers. One researcher, Daantje Derks, has concluded that "emoticons enhance the exchange of emotional information providing additional social cues beyond what is communicated in the verbal part of a message." The study further concludes that the need for emoticons is shown by their prevalence in computer communications although there is still significant opportunity for misinterpreting of the reason why one was included in the message.