[ PICTOGRAM CASE HISTORY ]
Material Symbols Window Closed Icon (Outlined). Needs intervention.
Visible referent: window closed. Intended message: The icon must communicate Window Closed in a digital interface.. The report separates observed asset evidence, submitted context, and public evidence signals.
0.61
PCS
0.41
CLL
0.51
NTR
[ FEATURED PICTOGRAM ]
pictoclarity / material-symbols-window-closed-outlined
Output - Material Symbols Window Closed Icon (Outlined)
Assessing the communicative effectiveness of the Window Closed icon
This reviewed catalog report estimates clarity for Window Closed in default interface contexts. Scores are screening estimates and do not replace user testing.
0.61
PCS
PictoClarity Score
0.41
CLL
Convention Learning Load
0.51
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 Window Closed icon in the outlined style.
02
Primary Finding
Primary referent: window closed.
03
Metric Reading
Implied function: The icon must communicate Window Closed in a digital interface..
04
Public Recommendation
Conduct representative user testing across diverse user groups to validate semantic transparency and reduce confusion risks, especially in contexts where labels or placement cues are minimal or absent.
[ 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
0.61
Needs intervention 0.61
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
0.25
Balance
0.70
Perceptual
0.75
Semantic
0.52
Functional
0.58
Cultural
0.31
Temporal
0.56
Neurocognitive
0.56
Context Independence
0.56
Collective Resonance
0.24
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 | 0.58 | How strongly the symbol maps to the intended function. |
| Cultural Convergence | 0.31 | How strongly recognition holds across cultural evidence and assumptions. |
| Temporal Convergence | 0.56 | How strongly meaning persists over time without semantic decay. |
| Neurocognitive Convergence | 0.56 | 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 | 0.24 | How strongly public evidence supports shared recognition and persistence. |
Evidence Notes.
8 Findings Published
Evidence
Primary referent: window closed.
Evidence
Implied function: The icon must communicate Window Closed in a digital interface..
Evidence
Metaphor type: functional.
Evidence
The icon effectively represents the concept of 'window closed' with a high confidence (0.9) in semantic transparency and functional meaning, aligning well with its intended use as a symbolic control in digital interfaces.
Evidence
Visual metrics indicate strong perceptual clarity and robustness, with an overall visual score of 0.77 and a perceptual convergence score of 0.75, meaning the icon maintains recognizability across size, blur, and contrast variations.
Evidence
Semantic convergence (0.52) and functional convergence (0.58) are moderate, suggesting the icon generally maps to its intended meaning but may require some learned convention.
Evidence
Cultural convergence is low (0.31), reflecting limited broad cultural recognition and evidence supporting shared understanding, which is the weakest axis in the convergence profile.
Evidence
Temporal convergence (0.56) and neurocognitive convergence (0.56) scores indicate moderate persistence of meaning over time and reasonable alignment with pictogram reading principles, though some cognitive transfer risk exists (NTR 0.51).
[ 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 | 0.73 |
| 1997 | 0.71 | 0.73 |
| 1998 | 0.71 | 0.73 |
| 1999 | 0.73 | 0.74 |
| 2000 | 0.72 | 0.74 |
| 2001 | 0.75 | 0.74 |
| 2002 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| 2003 | 0.72 | 0.74 |
| 2004 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| 2005 | 0.73 | 0.74 |
| 2006 | 0.73 | 0.74 |
| 2007 | 0.73 | 0.74 |
| 2008 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| 2009 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2010 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| 2011 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2012 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2013 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2014 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2015 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2016 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2017 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
| 2018 | 0.75 | 0.76 |
| 2019 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2020 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2021 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2022 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2023 | 0.28 | 0.24 |
| 2024 | 0.28 | 0.24 |
| 2025 | 0.28 | 0.24 |
| 2026 | 0.28 | 0.24 |
asset source
Material Symbols window_closed 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: window closed
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 16716841 records across 27 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: application window closed
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 4758332 records across 18 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
0.61
PictoClarity Score
STS
0.52
Semantic Transparency Score
CRI
0.59
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
0.66
Silhouette Fidelity Score
NDS
1.00
Negative Detail Score
BBS
0.03
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
0.39
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
0.41
Convention Learning Load
NTR
0.51
Neurocognitive Transfer Risk
SPS
0.31
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 across diverse user groups to validate semantic transparency and reduce confusion risks, especially in contexts where labels or placement cues are minimal or absent.
Action
Maintain visible text labels or tooltips alongside the icon until user testing confirms that the icon alone reliably communicates 'window closed' to the target audience.
Action
Consider enhancing contextual cues or combining the icon with other interface elements to reduce possible confusion with similar window control icons (e.g., open, minimize, maximize).
Action
Monitor cultural recognition trends and update icon design or usage guidelines as needed to improve cultural convergence and collective resonance over time.
Action
Ensure accessibility considerations are addressed by providing alternative text descriptions and supporting assistive technologies, given the moderate neurocognitive convergence and convention learning load.
[ 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.