Giving people useful applications will generate more interest than you will need.
It seems that you have missed some of the basics of quantum computing.
For quantum computing to work the system must be isolated from the environment for the period of the computation. You can't use it for anything interactive like graphics.
Any practical problem worth solving with quantum computer needs something like years or millions of years to solve using classical computer. Do you have database index where search takes years or graphics problem where output takes years?
Also consider the amount of qbits needed. For database search you need quantum computer with same order of magnitude qbits as the database index.
Practical problems for quantum computing are mostly scientific problems like simulating chemistry.
… doesn’t contribute much here, but worth knowing! It’s exciting either way.
Symmetric encryption and hash functions with 256 bits are already quantum proof.
Post-quantum algorithms are here in few years. Some of them are already in use in critical applications.
So for example, in computer science we can explain basic data structures like binary trees and hash tables from whichever context a student understands. We can use pointers and references from C-style imperative languages. We can use car and cdr from Lisp-style functional languages. We can even jump up to higher levels of abstraction with associative arrays in Javascript. Or make the whole thing in key-value stores like Redis or even a SQL database or x86 assembly if that floats our boat.
But with QC, even its "assembly language" of Hilbert spaces and tensors is already so difficult to understand, much less apply, that the terminology feels like gatekeeping. There's no way to easily identify the smoking gun(s) which separate a QC simulation from qubits in the real world. It's like asking an assembly language teacher how a full adder works, but they throw up their hands and say that first we must understand Fermi levels and electron diffusion across a PN junction. Which while important, doesn't answer the student's question.
What's needed are simple transforms to go from any existing formula/algorithm to its "optimized" QC equivalent. I don't know if that can be done in a general way, like how we can switch from the time domain to the frequency domain with a Fourier transform, or take the derivative of an equation. Maybe it's more like an integral where the solution must be "found" by composing known integrals from a dictionary using heuristics.
But without those transforms, I see us being stuck in a QC winter for the foreseeable future. My words are imperfect, but I know precisely what I'm getting at here. I can't run with QC the way I would with any other programming language, and it really bothers me. To the point of, I'll probably have to actually learn it from first principles and write it up from a programmer's perspective! Someday.
Debugging sounds like a real bear.