[ PICTOGRAM CASE HISTORY ]

Material Symbols South East Icon (Outlined). Needs intervention.

Visible referent: south east. Intended message: The icon must communicate South East in a digital interface.. The report separates observed asset evidence, submitted context, and public evidence signals.

0.62

PCS

0.39

CLL

0.48

NTR

[ FEATURED PICTOGRAM ]

Pictogram contrast preview
Paper
Ink

pictoclarity / material-symbols-south-east-outlined

Output - Material Symbols South East Icon (Outlined)

Assessing the communicative effectiveness of the South East icon

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

Mobile appWeb appDesktop app

0.62

PCS

PictoClarity Score

0.39

CLL

Convention Learning Load

0.48

NTR

Neurocognitive Transfer Risk

Read Evidence

[ 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 South East icon in the outlined style.

02

Primary Finding

Primary referent: south east.

03

Metric Reading

Implied function: The icon must communicate South East in a digital interface..

04

Public Recommendation

Include visible text labels or tooltips alongside the icon, especially in contexts where users may have varying familiarity or accessibility needs, to enhance semantic transparency and reduce confusion.

[ EVIDENCE SCREENING ]

What The Estimate Surfaces.

Semantic Transparency Score

Input

Expected

Estimated

0.55

Confusion Risk Index

Input

Possible

Estimated

0.53

Readability Test Score

Input

Visual

Estimated

0.79

PictoClarity Score

Input

Estimated

Estimated

0.62

Needs intervention 0.62

The pictogram carries meaningful clarity risk. The estimate applies to this pictogram, this meaning, and this public context.

Last Reviewed

Jun 23, 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

0.27

Balance

0.68

Perceptual

0.77

Semantic

0.55

Functional

0.59

Cultural

0.31

Temporal

0.57

Neurocognitive

0.59

Context Independence

0.60

Collective Resonance

0.25

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.

Convergent meaning profile
AxisScoreDescription
Perceptual Convergence0.77How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss.
Semantic Convergence0.55How strongly extracted meaning converges on one interpretation.
Functional Convergence0.59How strongly the symbol maps to the intended function.
Cultural Convergence0.31How strongly recognition holds across cultural evidence and assumptions.
Temporal Convergence0.57How strongly meaning persists over time without semantic decay.
Neurocognitive Convergence0.59How strongly the symbol follows AAC pictogram reading: transparent referent, concrete action, low convention load, and support.
Context Independence0.60How strongly meaning survives without external labels or placement cues.
Collective Resonance0.25How strongly public evidence supports shared recognition and persistence.

Evidence Notes.

8 Findings Published

Evidence

Primary referent: south east.

Evidence

Implied function: The icon must communicate South East in a digital interface..

Evidence

Metaphor type: functional.

Evidence

The icon effectively represents the south east direction with a clear diagonal arrow pointing down and to the right, framed by a box shape, aligning well with its intended functional meaning in digital interfaces.

Evidence

Visual metrics indicate strong perceptual clarity and robustness, with high scores in visual complexity, cohesion, and readability, supporting good recognition at small sizes and under various display conditions.

Evidence

Semantic and functional convergence scores are moderate, reflecting that while the icon generally communicates its intended direction, there is some risk of confusion with similar diagonal arrows or icons representing expand/enlarge or external links, especially when labels or contextual cues are absent.

Evidence

Cultural convergence and collective resonance are relatively low, indicating limited widespread cultural recognition and public evidence supporting shared understanding, which may affect users unfamiliar with the symbol or those from diverse cultural backgrounds.

Evidence

Temporal convergence suggests moderate persistence of meaning over time, with some evidence of semantic decay and generational divide, though cohort transfer analysis is disabled, limiting insights on age-related comprehension differences.

[ 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

Public evidence trend
Evidence yearSemantic TransparencyCultural Evidence
19960.780.76
19970.770.76
19980.750.76
19990.760.75
20000.770.76
20010.760.75
20020.760.76
20030.770.75
20040.770.75
20050.760.76
20060.760.76
20070.770.75
20080.760.75
20090.770.75
20100.780.75
20110.780.75
20120.780.75
20130.770.75
20140.760.75
20150.750.75
20160.760.76
20170.760.76
20180.760.75
20190.760.75
20200.760.75
20210.760.75
20220.760.75
20230.280.29
20240.280.28
20250.280.24
20260.280.24
Cohort transfer is inactive for this published report. The chart above uses evidence-year or metric data instead.

asset source

Material Symbols south_east 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 source

historical evidence

Google Books Ngram annual buckets: diagonal arrow

Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026

Annual extraction returned 11968216 records across 27 active years.

Open source

historical evidence

Wikimedia Pageviews annual buckets: south east

Wikimedia Pageviews / 1996-2026

Annual extraction returned 5 records across 2 active years.

Open source

historical evidence

Google Books Ngram annual buckets: directional arrow

Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026

Annual extraction returned 15942907 records across 27 active years.

Open source

historical evidence

Google Books Ngram annual buckets: south east

Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026

Annual extraction returned 16112368 records across 27 active years.

Open source

historical 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

0.62

PictoClarity Score

STS

0.55

Semantic Transparency Score

CRI

0.53

Confusion Risk Index

VRS

0.76

Visual Readability Score

PCH

1.00

Perceptual Cohesion

RTS

0.79

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

0.76

Silhouette Fidelity Score

NDS

1.00

Negative Detail Score

BBS

0.31

Bounding Box Balance

CPS

1.00

Compression Preservation

PDS

1.00

Pixel Density Suitability

ORS

0.75

Orientation Robustness

CAS

0.60

Color Accessibility Score

RRS

0.39

Referent Recognition Score

FAS

0.57

Functional Association Score

SOS

0.12

Semantic Obsolescence Score

CSS

0.01

Cultural Saturation Score

ERS

0.09

Evidence Reliability Score

MTS

0.28

Metaphor Transfer Score

TDS

0.18

Temporal Decay Score

GDS

0.17

Generational Divide Score

CLL

0.39

Convention Learning Load

NTR

0.48

Neurocognitive Transfer Risk

SPS

0.32

Symbol Persistence Score

OBS

0.19

Obsolescence Signal

CTS

0.00

Cohort Transfer Slope

[ RECOMMENDED NEXT ACTIONS ]

What Improves This Pictogram.

Action

Include visible text labels or tooltips alongside the icon, especially in contexts where users may have varying familiarity or accessibility needs, to enhance semantic transparency and reduce confusion.

Action

Conduct representative user testing across diverse user groups to validate comprehension and identify potential misinterpretations before deployment.

Action

Ensure consistent placement and contextual cues in the interface to support correct interpretation and minimize confusion with similar directional or functional icons.

Action

Monitor cultural and temporal trends in icon comprehension to update or supplement the icon as needed to maintain clarity and relevance over time.

Action

Keep visible label support when scores sit below strong clarity.

[ 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.