[ PICTOGRAM CASE HISTORY ]
Material Symbols Sentiment Dissatisfied.
Outlined icon
Usable with support
Visible referent: sentiment dissatisfied. Intended message: The icon must communicate Sentiment Dissatisfied in a digital interface.. The report separates observed asset evidence, submitted context, and public evidence signals.
0.67
PCS
0.39
CLL
0.48
NTR
[ FEATURED PICTOGRAM ]
pictoclarity / material-symbols-sentiment-dissatisfied-outlined
Output - Material Symbols Sentiment Dissatisfied Icon (Outlined)
Assessing the communicative effectiveness of the Sentiment Dissatisfied icon
This reviewed catalog report estimates clarity for Sentiment Dissatisfied in default interface contexts. Scores are screening estimates and do not replace user testing.
0.67
PCS
PictoClarity Score
0.39
CLL
Convention Learning Load
0.48
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 Sentiment Dissatisfied icon in the outlined style.
02
Primary Finding
Primary referent: sentiment dissatisfied.
03
Metric Reading
Implied function: The icon must communicate Sentiment Dissatisfied in a digital interface..
04
Public Recommendation
Run representative user testing before publication.
[ EVIDENCE SCREENING ]
What The Estimate Surfaces.
Semantic Transparency Score
Input
Expected
Estimated
0.64
Confusion Risk Index
Input
Possible
Estimated
0.49
Readability Test Score
Input
Visual
Estimated
0.75
PictoClarity Score
Input
Estimated
Estimated
0.67
Usable with support 0.67
The pictogram works with labels or context. 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
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 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
0.37
Balance
0.85
Perceptual
0.75
Semantic
0.64
Functional
0.65
Cultural
0.52
Temporal
0.55
Neurocognitive
0.59
Context Independence
0.66
Collective Resonance
0.53
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 | 0.75 | How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss. |
| Semantic Convergence | 0.64 | How strongly extracted meaning converges on one interpretation. |
| Functional Convergence | 0.65 | How strongly the symbol maps to the intended function. |
| Cultural Convergence | 0.52 | How strongly recognition holds across cultural evidence and assumptions. |
| Temporal Convergence | 0.55 | How strongly meaning persists over time without semantic decay. |
| Neurocognitive Convergence | 0.59 | How strongly the symbol follows AAC pictogram reading: transparent referent, concrete action, low convention load, and support. |
| Context Independence | 0.66 | How strongly meaning survives without external labels or placement cues. |
| Collective Resonance | 0.53 | How strongly public evidence supports shared recognition and persistence. |
Evidence Notes.
8 Findings Published
Evidence
Primary referent: sentiment dissatisfied.
Evidence
Implied function: The icon must communicate Sentiment Dissatisfied in a digital interface..
Evidence
Metaphor type: functional.
Evidence
Functional meaning: The icon must communicate Sentiment Dissatisfied in a digital interface..
Evidence
PCS total: 0.67.
Evidence
Weakest convergence axis: Cultural Convergence.
Evidence
Evidence warning: Annual Wikimedia Pageviews failed for "emoticon icon comprehension": HTTP 404.
Evidence
Evidence warning: Annual Wikimedia Pageviews failed for "sentiment dissatisfied": HTTP 404.
[ 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 | 0.71 | 0.56 |
| 1997 | 0.70 | 0.57 |
| 1998 | 0.70 | 0.58 |
| 1999 | 0.71 | 0.57 |
| 2000 | 0.71 | 0.61 |
| 2001 | 0.72 | 0.59 |
| 2002 | 0.71 | 0.60 |
| 2003 | 0.72 | 0.61 |
| 2004 | 0.72 | 0.61 |
| 2005 | 0.72 | 0.62 |
| 2006 | 0.73 | 0.63 |
| 2007 | 0.73 | 0.65 |
| 2008 | 0.73 | 0.66 |
| 2009 | 0.75 | 0.67 |
| 2010 | 0.75 | 0.68 |
| 2011 | 0.75 | 0.68 |
| 2012 | 0.75 | 0.69 |
| 2013 | 0.75 | 0.70 |
| 2014 | 0.77 | 0.70 |
| 2015 | 0.78 | 0.71 |
| 2016 | 0.78 | 0.71 |
| 2017 | 0.78 | 0.71 |
| 2018 | 0.77 | 0.72 |
| 2019 | 0.78 | 0.72 |
| 2020 | 0.77 | 0.72 |
| 2021 | 0.77 | 0.72 |
| 2022 | 0.77 | 0.73 |
| 2023 | 0.44 | 0.75 |
| 2024 | 0.45 | 0.75 |
| 2025 | 0.44 | 0.76 |
| 2026 | 0.41 | 0.70 |
asset source
Material Symbols sentiment_dissatisfied 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 sourcepublic evidence
Lisbon Emoji and Emoticon Database (LEED): Norms for emoji and emoticons in seven evaluative dimensions
OpenAlex / 2017-2017
Evidence query: emoticon icon comprehension.
Open sourcepublic evidence
An Integrated Review of Emoticons in Computer-Mediated Communication
OpenAlex / 2017-2017
Evidence query: emoticon icon comprehension.
Open sourcepublic evidence
A strong wink between verbal and emoji-based irony: How the brain processes ironic emojis during language comprehension
OpenAlex / 2018-2018
Evidence query: emoticon icon comprehension.
Open sourcepublic evidence
Face Mask Recognition System with YOLOV5 Based on Image Recognition
OpenAlex / 2020-2020
Evidence query: dissatisfied face recognition.
Open sourcepublic evidence
Struggles for Recognition: The Liberal International Order and the Merger of Its Discontents
OpenAlex / 2020-2020
Evidence query: dissatisfied face recognition.
Open sourcepublic evidence
Memory for faces: Encoding and retrieval operations
OpenAlex / 1984-1984
Evidence query: dissatisfied face recognition.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: emoticon
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 11987263 records across 27 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
OpenAlex annual buckets: emoticon icon comprehension
OpenAlex / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 722 records across 28 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: sentiment dissatisfied
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 0 records across 0 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
OpenAlex annual buckets: sentiment dissatisfied
OpenAlex / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 28816 records across 31 active years.
Open source[ TECHNICAL SCORECARD ]
The Metrics Behind The Case.
PCS
0.67
PictoClarity Score
STS
0.64
Semantic Transparency Score
CRI
0.49
Confusion Risk Index
VRS
0.73
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
0.67
Silhouette Fidelity Score
NDS
1.00
Negative Detail Score
BBS
0.05
Bounding Box Balance
CPS
1.00
Compression Preservation
PDS
1.00
Pixel Density Suitability
ORS
0.66
Orientation Robustness
CAS
0.60
Color Accessibility Score
RRS
0.58
Referent Recognition Score
FAS
0.73
Functional Association Score
SOS
0.32
Semantic Obsolescence Score
CSS
0.49
Cultural Saturation Score
ERS
0.53
Evidence Reliability Score
MTS
0.47
Metaphor Transfer Score
TDS
0.51
Temporal Decay Score
GDS
0.23
Generational Divide Score
CLL
0.39
Convention Learning Load
NTR
0.48
Neurocognitive Transfer Risk
SPS
0.50
Symbol Persistence Score
OBS
0.19
Obsolescence Signal
CTS
0.00
Cohort Transfer Slope
[ RECOMMENDED NEXT ACTIONS ]
What Improves This Pictogram.
Action
Run representative user testing before publication.
Action
Keep the text label visible until semantic transparency is proven.
Action
Keep visible label support when scores sit below strong clarity.
Action
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.