{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011246485473289597, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.512195121951219, '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}}
Reader perceptions in sequencing procedural graphics of complex machines

Research has traditionally supported the use of a text-graphics instructional base as an efficient way of demonstrating procedural graphics. The use of text with structural and functional information for understanding process graphics has been largely emphasized. Also, for proper understanding of sequential process graphics, configuration and the starting picture of the sequence has been stressed. But this article argues that fulfillment of these criteria do not necessarily solve the problem in a complex setting that involves multiple subassemblies, whereby a significant difference between the local and global context of the assembly arises. The non-availability of the entire assembly context in process graphics makes the reader prone to errors when transitioning from one subassembly to another, irrespective of the nature of aid used. But our findings show that readers using text as aid while making this transition actually perform better than those with outcome graphics as aid.