[ PICTOGRAM CASE HISTORY ]

Lucide Icons Table Cells Split.

Name: Lucide Icons Table Cells Split Icon (Default) PictoClarity report data
Creator: Lucide Icons and Contributors
Published: 2026-07-02T08:05:36.179Z
License: https://pictoclarity.com/license/

Default icon

Usable with support

Visible referent: table cells split. Intended message: The icon must communicate Table Cells Split in a digital interface. The report separates observed asset evidence, submitted context, and public evidence signals.

0.67

PCS

0.40

CLL

0.42

NTR

[ Diagnostic output ]

First read the submitted symbol.

0.67 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.

Paper

Ink

pictoclarity / lucide-table-cells-split-default

Output - Lucide Icons Table Cells Split Icon (Default)

Assessing the communicative effectiveness of the Table Cells Split icon

This reviewed catalog report estimates clarity for Table Cells Split in default interface contexts. Scores are screening estimates and do not replace user testing.

Mobile appWeb appDesktop app

0.67

PCS

PictoClarity Score

0.40

CLL

Convention Learning Load

0.42

NTR

Neurocognitive Transfer Risk

Read case interpretation→Markdown version

[ CASE INTERPRETATION ]

How the report reads.

Usable with support

0.67

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 ]

Evidence stays attached from input to support.

Context first. Score second. Support last.

Submitted context

Framework output for the Lucide Icons Table Cells Split icon in the default style.

Observed referent

Primary referent: table cells split.

Estimate driver

Implied function: The icon must communicate Table Cells Split in a digital interface..

Recommended support

Run representative user testing before publication.

[ METRIC DRIVERS ]

What changes the estimate.

Semantic Transparency Score

Input

Expected

→

Estimated

0.56

0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.

Confusion Risk Index

Input

Possible

→

Estimated

0.54

0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Intervention.

Readability Test Score

Input

Visual

→

Estimated

0.82

0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.

PictoClarity Score

Input

Estimated

→

Estimated

0.67

0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.

Usable with support 0.67

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 ]

How to read the level.

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 ]

Where evidence agrees.

The profile compares visual evidence, semantic extraction, cultural recognition, time, and cognitive context. It shows agreement between signals, not universal validity.

Convergent meaning profile

The radar shows where meaning converges. It does not certify universal validity.

Area

0.33

Balance

0.81

Perceptual

0.81

Semantic

0.56

Functional

0.58

Cultural

0.50

Temporal

0.48

Neurocognitive

0.61

Context Independence

0.59

Collective Resonance

0.51

Weakest Axis

Temporal Convergence

How strongly meaning persists over time without semantic decay.

Strongest Axis

Perceptual Convergence

How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss.

Convergent meaning profile
Axis	Score	Description
Perceptual Convergence	0.81	How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss.
Semantic Convergence	0.56	How strongly extracted meaning converges on one interpretation.
Functional Convergence	0.58	How strongly the symbol maps to the intended function.
Cultural Convergence	0.50	How strongly recognition holds across cultural evidence and assumptions.
Temporal Convergence	0.48	How strongly meaning persists over time without semantic decay.
Neurocognitive Convergence	0.61	How strongly the symbol follows AAC pictogram reading: transparent referent, concrete action, low convention load, and support.
Context Independence	0.59	How strongly meaning survives without external labels or placement cues.
Collective Resonance	0.51	How strongly public evidence supports shared recognition and persistence.

Temporal axis

0.48

Meaning weakens over time when the source object or function is less present in everyday use.

[ Published findings ]

What the case evidence says.

7 findings

Findings summarize the public reading for this pictogram. They do not replace user testing.

Finding 01

Primary referent: table cells split.

Finding 02

Implied function: The icon must communicate Table Cells Split in a digital interface..

Finding 03

Metaphor type: functional.

Finding 04

Functional meaning: The icon must communicate Table Cells Split in a digital interface..

Finding 05

PCS total: 0.67.

Finding 06

Weakest convergence axis: Temporal Convergence.

Finding 07

External evidence context (OpenAlex, 2004) links the case to symbol interpretation, meaning transfer, interface context; it does not replace user comprehension testing.

[ Public evidence ]

Public evidence trend

The chart shows public evidence buckets by evidence year. Cohort breakpoints appear only when an aging referent is active.

Public evidence trend

Evidence year: 2026

Evaluation

Reference point.

X axis: Evidence year

Public evidence trend
Evidence year	Semantic Transparency	Cultural Evidence
1996	0.70	0.66
1997	0.70	0.67
1998	0.70	0.66
1999	0.70	0.67
2000	0.70	0.67
2001	0.70	0.67
2002	0.70	0.67
2003	0.71	0.68
2004	0.71	0.68
2005	0.71	0.69
2006	0.72	0.69
2007	0.72	0.69
2008	0.73	0.70
2009	0.73	0.70
2010	0.73	0.71
2011	0.74	0.71
2012	0.74	0.71
2013	0.74	0.72
2014	0.74	0.72
2015	0.74	0.72
2016	0.75	0.72
2017	0.75	0.72
2018	0.75	0.73
2019	0.75	0.73
2020	0.75	0.73
2021	0.75	0.74
2022	0.75	0.74
2023	0.78	0.76
2024	0.76	0.75
2025	0.76	0.74
2026	0.73	0.72

Cohort transfer is not active for this published report. The chart above uses evidence-year or metric data instead.

Evidence note

External evidence not used for public claims

Some external references were not relevant enough to support public cultural or trend claims. Omitted: OpenAlex annual evidence: table cells split icon comprehension; Crossref annual evidence: table cells split icon comprehension.

asset source

Lucide Icons table-cells-split SVG

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

public evidence

Tactons: structured tactile messages for non-visual information display

OpenAlex / 2004-2004

Evidence query: table cells split icon comprehension. Context: Tactile displays are now becoming available in a form that can be easily used in a user interface. This paper de-scribes a new form of tactile output. Tactons, or tactile icons, are structured, abstract messages that can be used to communicate messages non-visually. A range of differ-ent parameters can be used for Tacton construction in-cluding: frequency, a Concepts: Computer science, Wearable computer, Human–computer interaction, Tactile display This external context does not replace user comprehension testing.

Open source

[ Metric scorecard ]

The scores behind the reading.

30 metrics

Each metric explains one pressure point. The composite score uses these signals together.

PCS

Driver

0.67

0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.

PictoClarity Score

Why it matters

The composite score is pulled down by confusion risk.

model-estimated / derived

STS

0.56

0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.

Semantic Transparency Score

model-estimated / independent

CRI

Driver

0.54

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

0.80

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

0.82

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 ]

What to test next.

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 ]

Request an invite for pictogram clarity screening.

Access stays invite-only during private testing.

Requests feed the admin invite queue.

Useful context helps select early pilots.