{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01744186046511628, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0048449612403100775, 'mean_word_length': 4.738888888888889, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative Analysis of the Normal Working Area in the Horizontal Plane

The normal working areas in the horizontal plane as developed by Farley and Squires were compared, in terms of one-handed, two-handed and total normal working areas and front and side ranges of the normal working areas, for the general male, female and combination of male and female operators and the individual male and female operators for the 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles. Squires’ method provided a considerable gain in the one-handed, two-handed and total normal working areas and the front range of the normal working area for all types of operator population and resulted in a relatively small loss in the side range of the normal working area in all but one instance. In consideration to the dynamic nature of the arm, while the hand sweeps an arc in the normal working area in the horizontal plane and the stated overall gain in the normal working area, Squires’ method should be used in preference to the most frequently employed Farley's method.