[ 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 ]
Usable with support
Visible referent: toilet fixture pictogram. Intended message: Communicate toilet or restroom access in public signage. The report separates observed asset evidence, submitted context, and public evidence signals.
0.66
PCS
0.51
CLL
0.60
NTR
[ Editorial case history ]
Open the case history to see how this report becomes a focused reading of clarity risk, support needs, and public evidence.
[ Diagnostic output ]
0.66 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 / noun-project-toilet-3121
Output - Noun Project Toilet Pictogram
This reviewed case history estimates whether the toilet fixture pictogram supports public restroom access as an AAC-baseline signage symbol. Scores are screening estimates and do not replace user testing.
0.66
PCS
PictoClarity Score
0.51
CLL
Convention Learning Load
0.60
NTR
Neurocognitive Transfer Risk
[ CASE INTERPRETATION ]
Usable with support
0.66
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 Noun Project public-domain toilet pictogram in a public signage context.
02
Primary referent: toilet fixture pictogram.
03
Implied function: Communicate toilet or restroom access in public signage..
04
Conduct targeted user testing with neurodivergent and AAC users to assess and improve object-to-action transfer and reduce neurocognitive transfer risk.
[ METRIC DRIVERS ]
Semantic Transparency Score
Input
Expected
Estimated
0.66
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Confusion Risk Index
Input
Possible
Estimated
0.48
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Intervention.Readability Test Score
Input
Visual
Estimated
0.92
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.PictoClarity Score
Input
Estimated
Estimated
0.66
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Usable with support 0.66
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 06, 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
0.44
Balance
0.82
Perceptual
0.86
Semantic
0.66
Functional
0.65
Cultural
0.65
Temporal
0.63
Neurocognitive
0.51
Context Independence
0.65
Collective Resonance
0.68
Weakest Axis
Neurocognitive Convergence
How strongly the symbol follows AAC pictogram reading: transparent referent, concrete action, low convention load, and support.
Strongest Axis
Perceptual Convergence
How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss.
| Axis | Score | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Perceptual Convergence | 0.86 | How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss. |
| Semantic Convergence | 0.66 | How strongly extracted meaning converges on one interpretation. |
| Functional Convergence | 0.65 | How strongly the symbol maps to the intended function. |
| Cultural Convergence | 0.65 | How strongly recognition holds across cultural evidence and assumptions. |
| Temporal Convergence | 0.63 | How strongly meaning persists over time without semantic decay. |
| Neurocognitive Convergence | 0.51 | How strongly the symbol follows AAC pictogram reading: transparent referent, concrete action, low convention load, and support. |
| Context Independence | 0.65 | How strongly meaning survives without external labels or placement cues. |
| Collective Resonance | 0.68 | How strongly public evidence supports shared recognition and persistence. |
Transfer risk
0.60
Seeing the object does not guarantee transfer to the intended communication task.
[ Published findings ]
8 findings
Findings summarize the public reading for this pictogram. They do not replace user testing.
Finding 01
Primary referent: toilet fixture pictogram.
Finding 02
Implied function: Communicate toilet or restroom access in public signage..
Finding 03
Metaphor type: functional.
Finding 04
The toilet pictogram shows strong perceptual convergence (0.86), indicating excellent visual clarity and resilience to size, blur, and contrast loss, supporting recognition under varied viewing conditions.
Finding 05
Semantic convergence is moderate (0.66), reflecting a generally clear but not fully unambiguous interpretation of the symbol as restroom access, consistent with the functional metaphor of a toilet fixture.
Finding 06
Functional convergence (0.65) aligns with the intended use to communicate toilet or restroom access, but some risk remains that users may not immediately infer location or access without additional context.
Finding 07
Cultural convergence (0.65) is moderate, supported by cultural assumptions and evidence that toilet fixture imagery is widely recognized for restroom signage, though some cultural variation and semantic obsolescence exist.
Finding 08
Temporal convergence (0.63) shows reasonable persistence of meaning over time, with some evidence of semantic decay and generational divide, but overall stable recognition.
[ 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 | 0.75 | 0.72 |
| 1997 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 1998 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 1999 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2000 | 0.76 | 0.74 |
| 2001 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2002 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2003 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2004 | 0.76 | 0.72 |
| 2005 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| 2006 | 0.77 | 0.73 |
| 2007 | 0.77 | 0.74 |
| 2008 | 0.77 | 0.72 |
| 2009 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2010 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
| 2011 | 0.78 | 0.75 |
| 2012 | 0.77 | 0.74 |
| 2013 | 0.77 | 0.72 |
| 2014 | 0.78 | 0.73 |
| 2015 | 0.78 | 0.74 |
| 2016 | 0.78 | 0.71 |
| 2017 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| 2018 | 0.78 | 0.72 |
| 2019 | 0.78 | 0.71 |
| 2020 | 0.78 | 0.71 |
| 2021 | 0.78 | 0.74 |
| 2022 | 0.78 | 0.72 |
| 2023 | 0.57 | 0.47 |
| 2024 | 0.57 | 0.48 |
| 2025 | 0.58 | 0.47 |
| 2026 | 0.55 | 0.45 |
Evidence note
Some external references were not relevant enough to support public cultural or trend claims. Omitted: OpenAlex annual evidence: toilet fixture pictogram; Crossref annual evidence: toilet fixture pictogram.
provider metadata
Noun Project
Public Domain Mark 1.0. Attribution recorded as: Toilet by Matthew Davis from Noun Project.
Open source[ Metric scorecard ]
30 metrics
Each metric explains one pressure point. The composite score uses these signals together.
PCS
Driver
0.66
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.PictoClarity Score
Why it matters
The composite score is pulled down by AAC baseline transfer risk and confusion risk.
model-estimated / derived
STS
0.66
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Semantic Transparency Score
model-estimated / independent
CRI
Driver
0.48
0-1 scale; lower is safer. Watch.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
0.82
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Visual Readability Score
measured / independent
PCH
0.87
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Perceptual Cohesion
measured / independent
RTS
0.92
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Readability Test Score
measured / independent
SRS
0.75
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Scale Robustness Score
measured / independent
BRS
0.91
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Blur Robustness Score
measured / independent
TCS
0.41
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Intervention.Target Contrast Stability
measured / independent
SDS
0.77
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Stroke Durability Score
measured / independent
[ RECOMMENDED SUPPORT ]
Recommendation
Conduct targeted user testing with neurodivergent and AAC users to assess and improve object-to-action transfer and reduce neurocognitive transfer risk.
Recommendation
Maintain visible text labels or supporting cues alongside the pictogram until semantic transparency and neurocognitive comprehension are empirically validated.
Recommendation
Consider design refinements to enhance semantic clarity and reduce potential confusion with plumbing fixtures, improving functional and semantic convergence.
Recommendation
Monitor cultural and temporal trends to ensure the symbol remains relevant and comprehensible across diverse user groups and over time.
Recommendation
Test object-to-action transfer with neurodivergent participants.
[ Private testing / Admin invite ]
Access stays invite-only during private testing.
Requests feed the admin invite queue.
Useful context helps select early pilots.