{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018192488262910797, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.0550621669627, '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}}
Economic principles for interactive graphic applications

With the continuing national economic malaise, there is a steadily increasing consciousness of the need to understand cost/benefits relationships which will result from the use of additional or alternative technical tools. This is particularly true in the consideration of interactive computer graphics (ICG) as a viable and valuable adjunct to our technical options. Although much potential exists to enhance our understanding of the economics of ICG, very little hard data has been forthcoming for a variety of reasons. There are a number of attributes which have been applied to ICG and which represent implied or intangible value. The oft-stated advantages of lead time reduction, reduction of the number of evaluation cycles, improved product quality, better training and comprehension, etc., have various degrees of economic benefit equivalence, but such benefits are difficult to quantify and they depend heavily on both the nature of the application and of the graphic user. For example, if time savings are manifest for tasks which lie on or close to the "critical path" of a multi-task project, cost benefits as a function of time saved might be easily verified and easily computed. On the other hand, savings of time on non "critical path" tasks may have little or no economic value whatsoever. Generally, however, the attributes stated above imply economic advantages on primarily qualitative terms. The problem of determining economic benefits is exacerbated by the method by which graphic facilities are charged. Prorated costs for additional systems and support are quite varied from institution to institution and opportunities for a variety of lease or buy options will impact the computation of cost effectiveness. It should be recognized that an appropriate console use charge for ICG most decidedly impacts ICG utilization and the level of utilization feeds back to affect the charge. Thus, early potential users of a start-up and low-use ICG system may be deterred for budgetary reasons. Therefore, maximum development of cost-effective operations would be possible if ICG use charges were predicted on an "expected" level of use over a reasonable time frame. An appropriate charge can be established as follows. First, determine use charge based on use of graphics of all applications where graphics could show any benefits potential. The resulting charge would then be based on a maximum operation of the system. This charge would then be studied in light of the prospective potential applications to eliminate those for which this "minimum" charge would be too great for cost effective ICG use. With the smaller set of potential applications, an amended use charge would be computed, remaining applications would be studied in light of the modified charge, and the iterative cycle would be continued until there is convergence on charges and applications which will use the system. If there is no convergence, then there would be no application set for which graphics is cost effective. The charge should be subsidized or put into overhead initially to give ample opportunities for ICG applications to reach their potential. Subsequently, the. charge to users would be periodically reviewed and modified. This approach to ICG charges can yield the optimum number of graphic scopes. This will be described later in more detail.