[ PICTOGRAM CASE HISTORY ]
Material Symbols Restaurant Icon (Outlined). Needs intervention.
Visible referent: restaurant. Intended message: The icon must communicate Restaurant in a digital interface.. The report separates observed asset evidence, submitted context, and public evidence signals.
0.60
PCS
0.44
CLL
0.60
NTR
[ FEATURED PICTOGRAM ]
pictoclarity / material-symbols-restaurant-outlined
Output - Material Symbols Restaurant Icon (Outlined)
Assessing the communicative effectiveness of the Restaurant icon
This reviewed catalog report estimates clarity for Restaurant in default interface contexts. Scores are screening estimates and do not replace user testing.
0.60
PCS
PictoClarity Score
0.44
CLL
Convention Learning Load
0.60
NTR
Neurocognitive Transfer Risk
[ HOW THE CASE READS ]
From Input To Public Evidence.
The application stores structured evidence. The public page turns it into a readable pictogram case history.
01
Submitted Context
Framework output for the Material Symbols Restaurant icon in the outlined style.
02
Primary Finding
Primary referent: restaurant.
03
Metric Reading
Implied function: The icon must communicate Restaurant in a digital interface..
04
Public Recommendation
Conduct user testing including neurodivergent participants to assess and improve object-to-action transfer and semantic clarity.
[ EVIDENCE SCREENING ]
What The Estimate Surfaces.
Semantic Transparency Score
Input
Expected
Estimated
0.52
Confusion Risk Index
Input
Possible
Estimated
0.59
Readability Test Score
Input
Visual
Estimated
0.75
PictoClarity Score
Input
Estimated
Estimated
0.60
Needs intervention 0.60
The pictogram carries meaningful clarity risk. The estimate applies to this pictogram, this meaning, and this public context.
Last Reviewed
Jun 24, 2026
[ SCORE SCALE ]
The Public Verdict Has A Range.
The level explains the estimated context. It is not a certification.
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
Current report
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 Meaning Converges.
The profile compares visual evidence, semantic extraction, cultural recognition, time, and cognitive context. It describes estimated convergence, not universal validity.
Convergent meaning profile
The radar shows where meaning converges. It does not certify universal validity.
Area
0.23
Balance
0.69
Perceptual
0.75
Semantic
0.52
Functional
0.56
Cultural
0.30
Temporal
0.56
Neurocognitive
0.46
Context Independence
0.56
Collective Resonance
0.23
Weakest Axis
Collective Resonance
How strongly public evidence supports shared recognition and persistence.
Strongest Axis
Perceptual Convergence
How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss.
| Axis | Score | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Perceptual Convergence | 0.75 | How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss. |
| Semantic Convergence | 0.52 | How strongly extracted meaning converges on one interpretation. |
| Functional Convergence | 0.56 | How strongly the symbol maps to the intended function. |
| Cultural Convergence | 0.30 | How strongly recognition holds across cultural evidence and assumptions. |
| Temporal Convergence | 0.56 | How strongly meaning persists over time without semantic decay. |
| Neurocognitive Convergence | 0.46 | How strongly the symbol follows AAC pictogram reading: transparent referent, concrete action, low convention load, and support. |
| Context Independence | 0.56 | How strongly meaning survives without external labels or placement cues. |
| Collective Resonance | 0.23 | How strongly public evidence supports shared recognition and persistence. |
Evidence Notes.
8 Findings Published
Evidence
Primary referent: restaurant.
Evidence
Implied function: The icon must communicate Restaurant in a digital interface..
Evidence
Metaphor type: functional.
Evidence
The icon effectively represents a restaurant through a building outline combined with fork and knife visual elements, supporting its intended functional meaning as a dining establishment symbol in digital interfaces.
Evidence
Visual perceptual quality is strong, with high scores for visual complexity, cohesion, and robustness to scale and blur, ensuring good recognition at small sizes and under varied display conditions.
Evidence
Semantic and functional convergence scores are moderate, indicating that while the icon generally conveys the restaurant concept, some ambiguity remains, especially without supporting labels or context.
Evidence
Cultural convergence is low, reflecting limited public evidence and recognition consistency across diverse user groups and cultural contexts.
Evidence
The neurocognitive convergence score suggests moderate risk that users with different cognitive styles may struggle to infer the intended meaning without additional cues.
[ TRANSFER / METRIC CHART ]
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
| Evidence year | Semantic Transparency | Cultural Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 0.75 | 0.74 |
| 1997 | 0.76 | 0.74 |
| 1998 | 0.76 | 0.74 |
| 1999 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2000 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2001 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2002 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2003 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2004 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2005 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2006 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2007 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2008 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2009 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| 2010 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
| 2011 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
| 2012 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2013 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| 2014 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
| 2015 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
| 2016 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| 2017 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| 2018 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| 2019 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
| 2020 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| 2021 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| 2022 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2023 | 0.28 | 0.33 |
| 2024 | 0.28 | 0.31 |
| 2025 | 0.28 | 0.33 |
| 2026 | 0.28 | 0.32 |
asset source
Material Symbols restaurant SVG
Material Symbols by Google
Unofficial clarity analysis. PictoClarity is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Google. Material Symbols are provided by Google under their published license.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: restaurant
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 21195799 records across 27 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Wikimedia Pageviews annual buckets: restaurant
Wikimedia Pageviews / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 1595 records across 11 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: dining establishment
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 18482095 records across 27 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: symbolic
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 20696972 records across 27 active years.
Open source[ TECHNICAL SCORECARD ]
The Metrics Behind The Case.
PCS
0.60
PictoClarity Score
STS
0.52
Semantic Transparency Score
CRI
0.59
Confusion Risk Index
VRS
0.72
Visual Readability Score
PCH
1.00
Perceptual Cohesion
RTS
0.75
Readability Test Score
SRS
0.70
Scale Robustness Score
BRS
0.84
Blur Robustness Score
TCS
0.78
Target Contrast Stability
SDS
0.74
Stroke Durability Score
SFS
0.65
Silhouette Fidelity Score
NDS
1.00
Negative Detail Score
BBS
0.00
Bounding Box Balance
CPS
1.00
Compression Preservation
PDS
1.00
Pixel Density Suitability
ORS
0.65
Orientation Robustness
CAS
0.60
Color Accessibility Score
RRS
0.37
Referent Recognition Score
FAS
0.55
Functional Association Score
SOS
0.12
Semantic Obsolescence Score
CSS
0.01
Cultural Saturation Score
ERS
0.09
Evidence Reliability Score
MTS
0.27
Metaphor Transfer Score
TDS
0.18
Temporal Decay Score
GDS
0.17
Generational Divide Score
CLL
0.44
Convention Learning Load
NTR
0.60
Neurocognitive Transfer Risk
SPS
0.30
Symbol Persistence Score
OBS
0.19
Obsolescence Signal
CTS
0.00
Cohort Transfer Slope
[ RECOMMENDED NEXT ACTIONS ]
What Improves This Pictogram.
Action
Conduct user testing including neurodivergent participants to assess and improve object-to-action transfer and semantic clarity.
Action
Maintain visible text labels or tooltips alongside the icon in interfaces until semantic transparency and user comprehension are confirmed.
Action
Enhance contextual cues such as placement and labeling to reduce confusion with similar icons representing cafes, bars, or generic buildings.
Action
Consider cultural adaptation or alternative symbols in contexts where the restaurant metaphor may not be universally recognized or where cultural saturation is low.
Action
Monitor and update icon design based on user feedback and evolving cultural recognition to maintain clarity and functional effectiveness over time.
[ 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.