Choosing the Right Style: How to Pick Pictograms Your Child Actually Understands

Why visual style matters

When introducing pictograms into daily life — for the morning routine, at daycare, or as communication support — it's natural to focus on the content: what should the images show? But there's an equally important factor that's often overlooked: how the images look.

A pictogram for "brush teeth" can look vastly different depending on the style. A simple line drawing, a colorful cartoon character, a realistic photo, or a minimalist icon — they all show the same thing, but they don't communicate equally well. For some children, the difference doesn't matter. For others, it's decisive.

Research in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) consistently shows that there is no single image style that works best for everyone. What matters most is matching the style to the individual child's cognitive level, sensory profile, and experiences (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013; Schlosser & Sigafoos, 2006). It sounds obvious — but in practice, many families and institutions simply use whatever style happens to come with the system they've purchased.

From concrete to abstract — a developmental progression

Children's ability to understand images as symbols develops over time. Very young children understand concrete, realistic images best — ideally of things they know from their own daily life. As the child grows older and more cognitively mature, they can work with increasingly abstract symbols.

The general progression looks like this:

• Toddlers and early communicators: Photos of real objects, ideally from the child's own environment
• Preschool age: Colored drawings with clear outlines
• School age and older: More simplified symbols, possibly with text labels

[IMAGE: Comparison of the same concept in realistic style vs. cartoon vs. line drawing]

This is a guideline, not a rule. Many children with autism have strong visual skills but can still struggle to understand photographs — because a photo contains too much irrelevant visual information. A puppy photographed in a garden has background, shadows, colors, and details that can distract from the actual message. A simple drawing of a dog on a white background is often clearer (Wilkinson & McIlvane, 2002).

Specificity matters

We often hear from parents that their child needs the pictogram to show the right thing. Not a generic trampoline — but the red trampoline in their garden. Not just any plate — but the blue plate their child always eats from.

This isn't being pedantic. For many children, especially those with autism, the detail is part of the understanding. If the image doesn't match reality, the child doesn't understand that it refers to the same thing. Research supports this: using images from the child's own environment increases generalization and comprehension, especially for early communicators (Downing, 2005; Cafiero, 2005).

The PECS method (Picture Exchange Communication System) deliberately starts with photos of the child's own preferred items — not generic symbols. Only when the child demonstrates symbolic understanding does the transition toward more abstract images begin (Bondy & Frost, 2001).

[IMAGE: Example of a generic pictogram vs. one matching the child's reality]

Low stimulus and sensory sensitivity

Many children with autism have sensory processing differences that affect how they experience visual materials. A colorful, detailed pictogram can feel overwhelming for some children — like a room with bright lights or loud music.

Bogdashina (2016) thoroughly documents how sensory differences in people with autism affect visual processing. The recommendation is clear: visual materials should be:

• Clean and calm in expression
• Presented against a neutral background
• Consistent in style — so the child doesn't have to spend energy adapting to new visual formats

[IMAGE: Comparison of a visually "calm" pictogram (high contrast/outline) vs. a colorful one]

The Low Arousal approach (McDonnell, 2010), originally developed for managing behavioral challenges, has direct implications for pictogram selection. When the visual environment is calm, stress levels drop — and the child has more capacity to understand and use the pictograms.

This doesn't mean all children need black-and-white line drawings. Some children thrive with colorful, cheerful cartoon characters. The point is that the choice should be deliberate — based on the child's needs, not on what looks prettiest to the adult.

The child's age and cognitive level

A pictogram that works for a 3-year-old isn't necessarily right for an 8-year-old. And vice versa.

For the youngest children, it's about recognition. They need images that look like what they already know — realistic, concrete, ideally with details they can identify. A drawing of a bed that looks like their own bed. A picture of a shoe that looks like their own shoes.

For older children, age-dignity becomes important. A 10-year-old doesn't want to use symbols that look like something from a toddler's book. More refined, simplified pictograms — or symbols with text — can feel more appropriate and therefore increase motivation to use them (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013).

[IMAGE: Pictogram in emoji style (younger audience) vs. minimalist style (older)]

Children who recognize themselves

One thing we've experienced is that some children respond more strongly to pictograms that look like them. When the child can see a figure with the same hair color, skin color, or clothing style, the pictogram becomes more personal and meaningful. It's about identification — the child understands that "that's me" in that situation.

This is especially relevant for social stories and routine schedules, where the child needs to imagine themselves in a specific situation. A pictogram of "a child brushing teeth" is abstract. A pictogram of a figure that looks like the child, brushing teeth — that's something the child can relate to.

Consistency is key

Regardless of which style is chosen, consistency is at least as important as the style itself. Research is clear: when the same symbols are used across home, school, and daycare, the child learns them faster and feels safer (Thistle & Wilkinson, 2015).

In practice, this means:

• Use the same image style in the morning routine, on the activity board, and in the communication folder
• Make sure all adults around the child — parents, educators, support workers — use the same pictograms
• Don't switch styles without good reason, and make the transition gradual if necessary

How to find the right style

There's no test you can take. It comes down to observation and trial:

1. Start with the child's level. Is the child an early communicator? Use realistic, concrete images. Is the child older with symbolic understanding? Try more simplified styles.

2. Observe the response. Does the child look at the pictogram? Do they react? Do they understand what the image means? If not, try a different style — maybe the current one is too detailed, too abstract, or too visually overwhelming.

3. Ask professionals. Speech therapists, special educators, and occupational therapists have experience matching image styles to individual needs. If you're working with a professional, involve them in the choice.

4. Be ready to adjust. The child's needs change over time. What works today may not work in a year. Regular evaluation is part of the process.

With Pictofy, you can generate the same pictogram in six different styles — from realistic to minimalist to high contrast. This makes it easy to compare and find the style the child responds to best, without having to switch between different systems.

[IMAGE: All 6 styles of the same pictogram side by side]

Sources

• Beukelman, D.R. & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and Alternative Communication (4th ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
• Bogdashina, O. (2016). Sensory Perceptual Issues in Autism and Asperger Syndrome (2nd ed.). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
• Bondy, A. & Frost, L. (2001). The Picture Exchange Communication System. Behavior Modification, 25(5).
• Cafiero, J. (2005). Meaningful Exchanges for People with Autism. Woodbine House.
• Downing, J. (2005). Teaching Communication Skills to Students with Severe Disabilities (2nd ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
• McDonnell, A. (2010). Managing Aggressive Behaviour in Care Settings. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Schlosser, R. & Sigafoos, J. (2006). Augmentative and alternative communication interventions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27(1).
• Thistle, J. & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Building evidence-based practice in AAC display design. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(2).
• Wilkinson, K. & McIlvane, W. (2002). Considerations in teaching graphic symbols to beginning communicators. In Reichle, Beukelman & Light (Eds.), Exemplary Practices for Beginning Communicators.