[ 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 ]
Not reliable
Visible referent: restroom figure sign. Intended message: Communicate unisex restroom access in public signage. The report separates observed asset evidence, submitted context, and public evidence signals.
0.46
PCS
0.65
CLL
0.89
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 ]
0.46 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 / wc-unisex
Output - WC Unisex Restroom Figures Pictogram
This reviewed case history estimates whether the WC unisex figures pictogram supports public restroom access as an AAC-baseline signage symbol. Scores are screening estimates and do not replace user testing.
0.46
PCS
PictoClarity Score
0.65
CLL
Convention Learning Load
0.89
NTR
Neurocognitive Transfer Risk
[ CASE INTERPRETATION ]
Not reliable
0.46
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Intervention.The pictogram does not communicate enough on its own. It applies to this pictogram, this meaning, and this public context.
[ Report trace ]
Context first. Score second. Support last.
01
Framework output for the WC unisex restroom figures pictogram in a public signage context.
02
Primary referent: restroom figure sign.
03
Implied function: Communicate unisex restroom access in public signage..
04
Review the pictogram as a convergent model relying on learned conventions rather than as a universally transparent design.
[ METRIC DRIVERS ]
Semantic Transparency Score
Input
Expected
Estimated
0.30
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Unreliable.Confusion Risk Index
Input
Possible
Estimated
0.63
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Readability Test Score
Input
Visual
Estimated
0.82
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.PictoClarity Score
Input
Estimated
Estimated
0.46
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Intervention.Not reliable 0.46
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Intervention.The pictogram does not communicate enough on its own. This level is scoped to the submitted meaning, visual asset, and public-use context.
Last Reviewed
Jul 06, 2026
[ Score scale ]
Not reliable
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
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
Current report
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
0.21
Balance
0.62
Perceptual
0.79
Semantic
0.30
Functional
0.28
Cultural
0.59
Temporal
0.55
Neurocognitive
0.24
Context Independence
0.28
Collective Resonance
0.61
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 | 0.79 | How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss. |
| Semantic Convergence | 0.30 | How strongly extracted meaning converges on one interpretation. |
| Functional Convergence | 0.28 | How strongly the symbol maps to the intended function. |
| Cultural Convergence | 0.59 | How strongly recognition holds across cultural evidence and assumptions. |
| Temporal Convergence | 0.55 | How strongly meaning persists over time without semantic decay. |
| Neurocognitive Convergence | 0.24 | How strongly the symbol follows AAC pictogram reading: transparent referent, concrete action, low convention load, and support. |
| Context Independence | 0.28 | How strongly meaning survives without external labels or placement cues. |
| Collective Resonance | 0.61 | How strongly public evidence supports shared recognition and persistence. |
Convention load
0.65
The pictogram asks users to know a convention instead of inferring the action directly from the drawing.
Transfer risk
0.89
Seeing the object does not guarantee transfer to the intended communication task.
Functional axis
0.28
The object-to-function link is fragile, so the icon benefits from a label or a clearer action cue.
[ Published findings ]
8 findings
Findings summarize the public reading for this pictogram. They do not replace user testing.
Finding 01
Primary referent: restroom figure sign.
Finding 02
Implied function: Communicate unisex restroom access in public signage..
Finding 03
Metaphor type: functional.
Finding 04
The WC Unisex Restroom Figures Pictogram shows two human restroom figures separated by a vertical divider, visually indicating gendered restroom figures but lacking a concrete toilet or restroom fixture, which reduces concrete referent clarity and lowers semantic transparency.
Finding 05
The symbol relies heavily on learned conventions about restroom figures and the vertical divider to communicate unisex access, resulting in high convention dependence and learned convention load.
Finding 06
Perceptual convergence is strong (0.79), indicating the visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss well.
Finding 07
Semantic (0.30), functional (0.28), neurocognitive (0.24), and context independence (0.28) convergence scores are low, reflecting challenges in clear meaning extraction, mapping to intended function, AAC pictogram reading, and meaning survival without external cues.
Finding 08
Cultural convergence (0.59) and collective resonance (0.61) are moderate, supported by cultural evidence and public recognition, though cultural saturation and metaphor transfer scores indicate some limitations.
[ 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 | 0.74 | 0.54 |
| 1997 | 0.72 | 0.54 |
| 1998 | 0.74 | 0.54 |
| 1999 | 0.73 | 0.55 |
| 2000 | 0.73 | 0.55 |
| 2001 | 0.74 | 0.56 |
| 2002 | 0.74 | 0.56 |
| 2003 | 0.74 | 0.57 |
| 2004 | 0.75 | 0.57 |
| 2005 | 0.75 | 0.58 |
| 2006 | 0.75 | 0.58 |
| 2007 | 0.75 | 0.59 |
| 2008 | 0.75 | 0.59 |
| 2009 | 0.76 | 0.61 |
| 2010 | 0.77 | 0.60 |
| 2011 | 0.77 | 0.60 |
| 2012 | 0.76 | 0.61 |
| 2013 | 0.76 | 0.61 |
| 2014 | 0.77 | 0.63 |
| 2015 | 0.77 | 0.62 |
| 2016 | 0.77 | 0.63 |
| 2017 | 0.77 | 0.64 |
| 2018 | 0.77 | 0.66 |
| 2019 | 0.78 | 0.66 |
| 2020 | 0.78 | 0.67 |
| 2021 | 0.78 | 0.68 |
| 2022 | 0.78 | 0.68 |
| 2023 | 0.57 | 0.76 |
| 2024 | 0.57 | 0.71 |
| 2025 | 0.58 | 0.71 |
| 2026 | 0.55 | 0.69 |
Evidence note
Some external references were not relevant enough to support public cultural or trend claims. Omitted: COMPATIBILITY OF VISIBILITY AND HARMONY OF PICTOGRAM -FOCUS ON RESTROOM MARK-; OpenAlex annual evidence: restroom figure sign; Crossref annual evidence: restroom figure sign.
[ Metric scorecard ]
30 metrics
Each metric explains one pressure point. The composite score uses these signals together.
PCS
Driver
0.46
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Intervention.PictoClarity Score
Why it matters
The composite score is pulled down by high convention load, AAC baseline transfer risk, and confusion risk.
model-estimated / derived
STS
0.30
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Unreliable.Semantic Transparency Score
model-estimated / independent
CRI
Driver
0.63
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
0.79
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Visual Readability Score
measured / independent
PCH
0.99
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
0.70
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Scale Robustness Score
measured / independent
BRS
0.84
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
0.74
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Stroke Durability Score
measured / independent
[ RECOMMENDED SUPPORT ]
Recommendation
Review the pictogram as a convergent model relying on learned conventions rather than as a universally transparent design.
Recommendation
Conduct user testing focusing on object-to-action transfer, especially with neurodivergent users and AAC users, to assess comprehension and transfer risk.
Recommendation
Validate whether users infer restroom access and unisex availability directly or learn the convention through exposure.
Recommendation
Maintain visible text labels or additional contextual cues until semantic transparency and context independence improve.
Recommendation
Consider redesign options that incorporate more concrete restroom elements (e.g., toilet fixture) to enhance concrete referent clarity and reduce reliance on learned conventions.
[ Private testing / Admin invite ]
Access stays invite-only during private testing.
Requests feed the admin invite queue.
Useful context helps select early pilots.