[ PICTOGRAM CASE HISTORY ]
Material Symbols Thumb Down Off Icon (Outlined). Needs intervention.
Visible referent: thumb down off. Intended message: The icon must communicate Thumb Down Off in a digital interface.. The report separates observed asset evidence, submitted context, and public evidence signals.
0.63
PCS
0.38
CLL
0.48
NTR
[ FEATURED PICTOGRAM ]
pictoclarity / material-symbols-thumb-down-off-outlined
Output - Material Symbols Thumb Down Off Icon (Outlined)
Assessing the communicative effectiveness of the Thumb Down Off icon
This reviewed catalog report estimates clarity for Thumb Down Off in default interface contexts. Scores are screening estimates and do not replace user testing.
0.63
PCS
PictoClarity Score
0.38
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 Thumb Down Off icon in the outlined style.
02
Primary Finding
Primary referent: thumb down off.
03
Metric Reading
Implied function: The icon must communicate Thumb Down Off in a digital interface..
04
Public Recommendation
Conduct representative user testing with diverse user groups to validate comprehension and reduce confusion with neighboring interface actions.
[ EVIDENCE SCREENING ]
What The Estimate Surfaces.
Semantic Transparency Score
Input
Expected
Estimated
0.58
Confusion Risk Index
Input
Possible
Estimated
0.52
Readability Test Score
Input
Visual
Estimated
0.82
PictoClarity Score
Input
Estimated
Estimated
0.63
Needs intervention 0.63
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
0.29
Balance
0.69
Perceptual
0.79
Semantic
0.58
Functional
0.62
Cultural
0.33
Temporal
0.58
Neurocognitive
0.59
Context Independence
0.62
Collective Resonance
0.27
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 | 0.79 | How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss. |
| Semantic Convergence | 0.58 | How strongly extracted meaning converges on one interpretation. |
| Functional Convergence | 0.62 | How strongly the symbol maps to the intended function. |
| Cultural Convergence | 0.33 | How strongly recognition holds across cultural evidence and assumptions. |
| Temporal Convergence | 0.58 | 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 | 0.62 | How strongly meaning survives without external labels or placement cues. |
| Collective Resonance | 0.27 | How strongly public evidence supports shared recognition and persistence. |
Evidence Notes.
8 Findings Published
Evidence
Primary referent: thumb down off.
Evidence
Implied function: The icon must communicate Thumb Down Off in a digital interface..
Evidence
Metaphor type: functional.
Evidence
The icon effectively represents the 'thumb down off' gesture with strong perceptual clarity, scoring 0.79 in perceptual convergence, indicating good visual resilience across size, blur, and contrast variations.
Evidence
Semantic and functional convergence scores (0.58 and 0.62 respectively) show moderate clarity in conveying the intended negative feedback function, but some ambiguity remains.
Evidence
Cultural convergence is low (0.33), reflecting limited widespread cultural recognition and evidence supporting shared understanding of this specific 'thumb down off' symbol.
Evidence
Temporal convergence (0.58) suggests the meaning persists over time without significant semantic decay, supported by steady usage of the 'thumb down' gesture in literature since 1996.
Evidence
Neurocognitive convergence (0.59) indicates moderate ease of interpretation across different cognitive styles, though the convention learning load (0.38) and neurocognitive transfer risk (0.48) highlight some reliance on learned conventions rather than pure pictogram transparency.
[ 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 | 0.74 |
| 1997 | 0.71 | 0.74 |
| 1998 | 0.71 | 0.74 |
| 1999 | 0.72 | 0.74 |
| 2000 | 0.72 | 0.75 |
| 2001 | 0.72 | 0.74 |
| 2002 | 0.73 | 0.75 |
| 2003 | 0.73 | 0.75 |
| 2004 | 0.73 | 0.75 |
| 2005 | 0.73 | 0.75 |
| 2006 | 0.73 | 0.75 |
| 2007 | 0.74 | 0.75 |
| 2008 | 0.74 | 0.75 |
| 2009 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| 2010 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| 2011 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2012 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2013 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2014 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2015 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2016 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| 2017 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| 2018 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| 2019 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
| 2020 | 0.78 | 0.75 |
| 2021 | 0.78 | 0.75 |
| 2022 | 0.78 | 0.75 |
| 2023 | 0.28 | 0.24 |
| 2024 | 0.28 | 0.24 |
| 2025 | 0.28 | 0.24 |
| 2026 | 0.28 | 0.24 |
asset source
Material Symbols thumb_down_off 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
Hand gesture recognition for multimedia applications
Wikidata
Evidence query: hand gesture recognition.
Open sourcepublic evidence
Hand gesture recognition and tracking based on distributed locally linear embedding
Wikidata
Evidence query: hand gesture recognition.
Open sourcepublic evidence
Hand Gesture Recognition in Automotive Human⁻Machine Interaction Using Depth Cameras
Wikidata
Evidence query: hand gesture recognition.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: thumb down
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 14353420 records across 27 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: hand gesture
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 10358551 records across 27 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: thumb down off
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 0 records across 0 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
0.63
PictoClarity Score
STS
0.58
Semantic Transparency Score
CRI
0.52
Confusion Risk Index
VRS
0.78
Visual Readability Score
PCH
1.00
Perceptual Cohesion
RTS
0.82
Readability Test Score
SRS
0.66
Scale Robustness Score
BRS
0.84
Blur Robustness Score
TCS
0.78
Target Contrast Stability
SDS
0.74
Stroke Durability Score
SFS
0.83
Silhouette Fidelity Score
NDS
1.00
Negative Detail Score
BBS
0.51
Bounding Box Balance
CPS
1.00
Compression Preservation
PDS
1.00
Pixel Density Suitability
ORS
0.83
Orientation Robustness
CAS
0.60
Color Accessibility Score
RRS
0.42
Referent Recognition Score
FAS
0.62
Functional Association Score
SOS
0.12
Semantic Obsolescence Score
CSS
0.03
Cultural Saturation Score
ERS
0.11
Evidence Reliability Score
MTS
0.31
Metaphor Transfer Score
TDS
0.18
Temporal Decay Score
GDS
0.15
Generational Divide Score
CLL
0.38
Convention Learning Load
NTR
0.48
Neurocognitive Transfer Risk
SPS
0.35
Symbol Persistence Score
OBS
0.19
Obsolescence Signal
CTS
0.00
Cohort Transfer Slope
[ RECOMMENDED NEXT ACTIONS ]
What Improves This Pictogram.
Action
Conduct representative user testing with diverse user groups to validate comprehension and reduce confusion with neighboring interface actions.
Action
Maintain visible text labels or tooltips alongside the icon until semantic transparency and user familiarity are confirmed through testing.
Action
Ensure consistent placement and contextual cues in the interface to minimize misinterpretation, especially for users with varying platform conventions and accessibility needs.
Action
Consider enhancing cultural recognition by providing onboarding or explanatory content where the icon is used, given the low cultural convergence and collective resonance scores.
Action
Monitor user feedback and update the icon design or usage guidelines if confusion or misinterpretation is reported, leveraging the strong perceptual qualities of the icon as a foundation.
[ 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.