[ Public ]
FrameworkMetric vocabulary, limits, and screening structure.ReportsReviewed public case histories and score interpretation.CasesEditorial comparisons built from reviewed public reports.Icon setsCanonical provider coverage linked to public reports.Public-service contextOne high-risk coverage context for shared icon decisions.AboutProject origin, creator, and operating boundaries.[ PICTOGRAM CASE HISTORY ]
Default icon
Usable with support
Visible referent: between horizonal end. Intended message: The icon must communicate Between Horizonal End in a digital interface. The report separates observed asset evidence, submitted context, and public evidence signals.
0.68
PCS
0.39
CLL
0.42
NTR
[ Diagnostic output ]
0.68 PCS · 0-1 higher is clearer
The report starts with the visible asset, intended message, score, and context. The estimate stays scoped to this case.
pictoclarity / lucide-between-horizonal-end-default
Output - Lucide Icons Between Horizonal End Icon (Default)
This reviewed catalog report estimates clarity for Between Horizonal End in default interface contexts. Scores are screening estimates and do not replace user testing.
0.68
PCS
PictoClarity Score
0.39
CLL
Convention Learning Load
0.42
NTR
Neurocognitive Transfer Risk
[ CASE INTERPRETATION ]
Usable with support
0.68
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.The pictogram works with labels or context. It applies to this pictogram, this meaning, and this public context.
[ Report trace ]
Context first. Score second. Support last.
01
Framework output for the Lucide Icons Between Horizonal End icon in the default style.
02
Primary referent: between horizonal end.
03
Implied function: The icon must communicate Between Horizonal End in a digital interface..
04
Run representative user testing before publication.
[ METRIC DRIVERS ]
Semantic Transparency Score
Input
Expected
Estimated
0.55
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Confusion Risk Index
Input
Possible
Estimated
0.55
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Readability Test Score
Input
Visual
Estimated
0.87
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.PictoClarity Score
Input
Estimated
Estimated
0.68
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Usable with support 0.68
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.The pictogram works with labels or context. This level is scoped to the submitted meaning, visual asset, and public-use context.
Last Reviewed
Jul 04, 2026
[ Score scale ]
Usable with support
The label names screening risk for this context. It is not a certification or a measured comprehension rate.
0.80-1.00
Strong clarity
The pictogram communicates well in this context.
Use it, then keep testing with real users.
0.65-0.79
Usable with support
Current report
The pictogram works with labels or context.
Pair it with text and monitor interpretation.
0.50-0.64
Needs intervention
The pictogram carries meaningful clarity risk.
Improve the symbol before relying on it.
0.00-0.49
Not reliable
The pictogram does not communicate enough alone.
Replace it or add strong alternative support.
[ CONVERGENCE PROFILE ]
The profile compares visual evidence, semantic extraction, cultural recognition, time, and cognitive context. It shows agreement between signals, not universal validity.
The radar shows where meaning converges. It does not certify universal validity.
Area
0.34
Balance
0.78
Perceptual
0.84
Semantic
0.55
Functional
0.59
Cultural
0.48
Temporal
0.52
Neurocognitive
0.62
Context Independence
0.60
Collective Resonance
0.48
Weakest Axis
Cultural Convergence
How strongly recognition holds across cultural evidence and assumptions.
Strongest Axis
Perceptual Convergence
How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss.
| Axis | Score | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Perceptual Convergence | 0.84 | How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss. |
| Semantic Convergence | 0.55 | How strongly extracted meaning converges on one interpretation. |
| Functional Convergence | 0.59 | How strongly the symbol maps to the intended function. |
| Cultural Convergence | 0.48 | How strongly recognition holds across cultural evidence and assumptions. |
| Temporal Convergence | 0.52 | How strongly meaning persists over time without semantic decay. |
| Neurocognitive Convergence | 0.62 | How strongly the symbol follows AAC pictogram reading: transparent referent, concrete action, low convention load, and support. |
| Context Independence | 0.60 | How strongly meaning survives without external labels or placement cues. |
| Collective Resonance | 0.48 | How strongly public evidence supports shared recognition and persistence. |
Cultural axis
0.48
Recognition depends on cultural exposure and prior assumptions, so shared understanding is weaker than visual recognition alone suggests.
Evidence floor
0.44
Public evidence is thin or unavailable for display, so the cultural reading stays cautious.
[ Published findings ]
6 findings
Findings summarize the public reading for this pictogram. They do not replace user testing.
Finding 01
Primary referent: between horizonal end.
Finding 02
Implied function: The icon must communicate Between Horizonal End in a digital interface..
Finding 03
Metaphor type: functional.
Finding 04
Functional meaning: The icon must communicate Between Horizonal End in a digital interface..
Finding 05
PCS total: 0.68.
Finding 06
Weakest convergence axis: Cultural Convergence.
[ Public evidence ]
The chart shows public evidence buckets by evidence year. Cohort breakpoints appear only when an aging referent is active.
Evidence year: 2026
Evaluation
Reference point.
X axis: Evidence year
| Evidence year | Semantic Transparency | Cultural Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 0.69 | 0.66 |
| 1997 | 0.69 | 0.66 |
| 1998 | 0.69 | 0.66 |
| 1999 | 0.69 | 0.66 |
| 2000 | 0.70 | 0.67 |
| 2001 | 0.70 | 0.67 |
| 2002 | 0.70 | 0.67 |
| 2003 | 0.70 | 0.67 |
| 2004 | 0.71 | 0.68 |
| 2005 | 0.71 | 0.68 |
| 2006 | 0.71 | 0.68 |
| 2007 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| 2008 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| 2009 | 0.72 | 0.70 |
| 2010 | 0.73 | 0.70 |
| 2011 | 0.73 | 0.71 |
| 2012 | 0.74 | 0.71 |
| 2013 | 0.74 | 0.71 |
| 2014 | 0.74 | 0.72 |
| 2015 | 0.75 | 0.72 |
| 2016 | 0.75 | 0.73 |
| 2017 | 0.75 | 0.73 |
| 2018 | 0.76 | 0.73 |
| 2019 | 0.76 | 0.74 |
| 2020 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2021 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2022 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2023 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
| 2024 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
| 2025 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
| 2026 | 0.75 | 0.74 |
Evidence note
Some external references were not relevant enough to support public cultural or trend claims. Omitted: OpenAlex annual evidence: between vertical end icon comprehension; Crossref annual evidence: between vertical end icon comprehension.
asset source
Lucide Icons and Contributors
Unofficial clarity analysis. PictoClarity is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Lucide Icons. Lucide icons are provided by Lucide Icons and Contributors under the ISC License.
Open source[ Metric scorecard ]
30 metrics
Each metric explains one pressure point. The composite score uses these signals together.
PCS
Driver
0.68
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.PictoClarity Score
Why it matters
The composite score is pulled down by confusion risk and weak public evidence.
model-estimated / derived
STS
0.55
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Semantic Transparency Score
model-estimated / independent
CRI
Driver
0.55
0-1 scale; lower is safer. High risk.Confusion Risk Index
Why it matters
The intended meaning can compete with nearby readings, especially when the icon appears without a text label.
model-estimated / derived
VRS
0.84
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Visual Readability Score
measured / independent
PCH
1.00
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Perceptual Cohesion
measured / independent
RTS
0.87
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Readability Test Score
measured / independent
SRS
0.73
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Scale Robustness Score
measured / independent
BRS
0.90
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Blur Robustness Score
measured / independent
TCS
0.78
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Target Contrast Stability
measured / independent
SDS
0.85
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Stroke Durability Score
measured / independent
[ RECOMMENDED SUPPORT ]
Recommendation
Run representative user testing before publication.
Recommendation
Keep the text label visible until semantic transparency is proven.
Recommendation
Keep visible label support when scores sit below strong clarity.
Recommendation
Validate interpretation with representative users before high-risk release.
[ Private testing / Admin invite ]
Access stays invite-only during private testing.
Requests feed the admin invite queue.
Useful context helps select early pilots.