本研究旨在嘗試以視覺化的角度探討標籤字體大小對於使用者標記行為的影響，並在上述情況下，探討使用者選用的標籤品質是否較佳。
本研究建立兩種標籤雲介面，實驗組為有字體大小變化，控制組為無字體大小變化，採用受試者內設計和拉丁方格法設計實驗。實驗組的標籤先以TF-IDF演算法計算出標籤的權重，再依權重對應到標籤字體大小，隨機排列於標籤雲內；而控制組的標籤沒有經過TF-IDF的計算，以固定的字體隨機排列於標籤雲內。
參與實驗的受試者在系統安排好的介面順序之下，皆會使用兩種介面，從標籤雲內自由選用適合的標籤去標記指定書籍。受試者完成標記任務之後需接受研究者的簡短訪談。另安排兩位專業圖書館員標記相同的書籍，所得結果作為使用者選用的標籤品質評估基準。
本研究分析實驗結果與歸納訪談內容後，得到下述結論。受試者在實驗組與控制組的標記行為有差異。從標籤被選用次數之分佈狀況來看，在實驗組的介面裡，使用者傾向選用字體大的標籤，使得標籤被選用次數分佈較不平均；而在控制組的介面裡，標籤被選用次數分佈較為平均。
受試者在實驗組與控制組中選用的標籤品質有差異。以館員選用的標籤評估受試者在兩種介面裡選用的標籤品質，發現在實驗組的介面裡，受試者選用的標籤與標籤名次接近館員選用的標籤和標籤名次。亦即在有字體大小變化的介面裡，受試者選用的標籤品質較高；而在控制組的介面裡，受試者選用的標籤品質不高。由此判斷採用實驗組介面(有字體大小變化)標記書籍可以提升標籤品質。

The purpose of the study is to examine whether the users’ selection of tags is affected by the font size of the tags in a visual interface, and to examine whether TF-IDF weight based tag size visualization is more conducive to the quality of the tags they choose.
A book-tagging experiment was conducted with Latin square design where the participants were asked to use alternately two tag cloud interface to tag sixteen books, one without visualization, the other vary the size to tags based on their TF-IDF weight Thirty-six participants who had basic familiarity of these books took part in the experiment. After tagging the books, they were also asked to rank the importance of the tags they had assigned for each book. Two professional librarians were asked to tag and rank the same set of books, the result of which served as the benchmark for comparing the quality of the tags selected by participants.
The results showed a difference in the selected tags between visualization and non-visualization interfaces in terms of tag concentration. Tags selected using the visualization showed significant more uneven distribution as measured by Gini index and entropy. A correlation of tag size and tag selection was found where visualization was present, which indicated the impact of varying tag font size on the participants’ selection. A difference in the quality of the tags selected was also found. Using tags selected by librarians as quality criteria to evaluate the quality of users’ selected tags in two different groups, we found a significantly higher similarity between the tags selected by the librarians and the participants using the visualization interface. Furthermore, the results also showed the effect of visualization was over and above the effect of users’ own knowledge.

誌謝 i
摘要 ii
Abstract iii
目次 iv
圖目次 vi
表目次 vii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究問題與目的 4
第三節 研究範圍與限制 5
第四節 名詞解釋 6
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 詞頻(TF)與逆向文件頻率(IDF) 9
第二節 社會性標記與標籤 12
第三節 標籤雲與視覺特徵 17
第四節 標籤品質與評估方法 21
第三章 研究方法與設計 27
第一節 受試者條件 28
第二節 研究設計 29
第三節 研究工具 30
第四節 實驗流程 37
第五節 資料分析與處理 39
第六節 信效度策略 44
第四章 研究結果與討論 45
第一節 使用者基本資料 45
第二節 標籤基本統計量 49
第三節 標籤被選用次數之分佈狀況 54
第四節 標籤品質 67
第五節 小結 75
第五章 研究結論與建議 78
第一節 研究結論 78
第二節 研究建議 84
參考文獻 86
附錄一 受試者實驗問卷 91
附錄二 館員實驗問卷 95
附錄三 參與實驗同意書 99
附錄四 受試者之實驗說明 100
附錄五 館員之實驗說明 102
 

中文文獻
卜小蝶（2007）。使用者導向之網路資源組織與檢索。臺北市：文華。
卜小蝶、張淇龍（2009）。社會性書籤網站之使用者與標籤特性初探。圖書資訊學研究，4(1)，1-26。
行政院經濟建設委員會人力規劃處（2007）。吉尼係數(Gini coefficient)在經濟小辭典。檢索日期：2011年5月20日。網址：http://www.cepd.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0001246
林倩妏、卜小蝶（2010）。標籤雲在圖書資訊服務之應用初探。在2010海峽兩岸圖書資訊學學術研討會論文集 B 輯（117-132）。南京市：南京大學。檢索日期：2012年3月25日。網址：http://www.glis.ntnu.edu.tw/webpage/docs/research/international/2010nanjing_II-09.pdf
高強、林修葳、張森林、蔡維奇、邱志聖、陳彥良、陳梁軒、方世杰（2007）。管理學門國內期刊排序計畫。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告（編號：NSC95-2420-H006-002），未出版。
陳正昌、張慶勳主編（2007）。量化研究與統計分析。臺北市：新學林。
陳怡蓁（2010）。層面分類結構應用於社會性標記之研究：以圖書作品為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣大學，臺北市。
單維彰（2003）。HTML教材：字型大小。檢索日期：2011年5月20日。網址：http://libai.math.ncu.edu.tw/bcc16/7/html/b06.shtml
 
英文文獻
Bar-Ilan, J., Zhitomirsky-Geffet , M., Miller, Y., Shoham, S. (2010). The effects of background information and social interaction on image tagging. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(5), 940-951.
Bateman, S., Gutwin, C., & Nacenta, M. (2008). Seeing things in the clouds: the effect of visual features on tag cloud selections. Proceedings of the nineteenth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, 193–202.
Ben-Naim, A. (2007). Entropy Demystified: The Second Law Reduced to Plain Common Sense. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.
Bianco, C. E. (2009). Medical librarians’ uses and perceptions of social tagging. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 97(2), 136-139.
Cattuto, C., Benz, D., Hotho, A., & Stumme, G. (2008). Semantic analysis of tag similarity measures in collaborative tagging systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Ontology Learning and Population OLP3, Patras, Greece, pp. 39-43.
Damme, C. V., Hepp, M., & Coenen, T. (2008). Quality metrics for tags of broad folksonomies. Proceedings of International Conference on Semantic Systems (I-SEMANTICS), 118–125.
Dieberger, A. Dourish, P., Höök,K., Resnick, P., & Wexelblat, A. (2000) Social navigation: techniques for building more usable systems, Interactions7(6), 36-45.
Ding, Y., Jacob, E. K., Zhang, Z., Foo, S., Yan, E., George, N. L., & Guo, L. (2009). Perspectives on social tagging. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2388-2401.
Fu, W. T., Kannampallil, T. G., & Kang, R. (2010). Facilitating exploratory search by model-based navigational cues. Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, 199–208.
Golder, S. A. & Huberman, B. A.(2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198-208.
Golub, K., Moon, J., Tudhope, D., Jones, C., Matthews, B., Puzon, B. & Nielsen, M. L. (2009). EnTag: enhancing social tagging for discovery. Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, 163–172.
Guy, M., & Tonkin, E. (2006). Folksonomies. D-Lib Magazine, 12(1). Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january06/guy/01guy.html

Halvey, M. J., & Keane, M. T. (2007). An assessment of tag presentation techniques. Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, 1313–1314.
Hammond, T., Hannay, T., Lund, B., & Scott, J. (2005). Social bookmarking tools (I): A general review. D-Lib Magazine, 11(4). Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april05/hammond/04hammond.html
Harvey, M., Baillie, M., Ruthven, I., & Elsweiler, D. (2009). Folksonomic tag clouds as an aid to content indexing. SIGIR 2009 Workshop on Search in Social Media, Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.4178.pdf
Lamere, P. (2008). Social tagging and music information retrieval. Journal of New Music Research, 37(2), 101–114.
Lohmann, S., Ziegler, J., & Tetzlaff, L. (2009). Comparison of tag cloud layouts: Task-related performance and visual exploration. Human-Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2009, 392–404.
Marinchev, I. (2006). Practical semantic web tagging and tag clouds. Cybernetics and Information Technologies, 6(3), 33–39.
Markines, B., Cattuto, C., Menczer, F., Benz, D., Hotho, A., & Stumme, G. (2009). Evaluating similarity measures for emergent semantics of social tagging. In WWW ’09: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World wide web, New York, NY, USA , ACM, 641–650.
Marlow, C., Naaman, M., Boyd, D., & Davis, M. (2006). HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr, academic article, to read. Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, 31–40.
Mathes, A. (2004). Folksonomies - cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html
Montemurro, M. A., & Zanette, D. (2009). Towards the quantification of the semantic information encoded in written language. Arxiv preprint arXiv:0907.1558. Retrieved May 25, 2012, from http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1558.pdf
Munk, T. B., & Mørk, K. (2007a). Folksonomy, the power law & the significance of the least effort. Knowledge Organization, 34(1), 16-33.
Munk, T. B., & Mørk, K. (2007b). Folksonomies, tagging communities, and tagging strategies--an empirical study. Knowledge Organization, 34(3), 115-127.

Noruzi, A. (2006). Folksonomies: (un) controlled vocabulary? Knowledge organization,33(4), 199-203.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Peters, I. & Weller, K. (2008). Tag gardening for folksonomy enrichment and maintenance. Webology, 5(3). Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://www.webology.org/2008/v5n3/a58.html
Quintarelli, E., Resmini, A., & Rosati L., (2007). FaceTag: integrating bottom-up and top-down classification in a social tagging system. Paper presented at International IA Summit 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States. Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://www.facetag.org/download/facetag-20070325.pdf
Rader, E., & Wash, R. (2008). Influences on tag choices in del.icio.us. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work , 239–248.
Rivadeneira, A. W., Gruen, D. M., Muller, M. J., & Millen, D. R. (2007). Getting our head in the clouds: toward evaluation studies of tagclouds. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 995–998.
Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311(5762), 854-856.
Salton, G. & McGill, M. J. (1983). Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Salton, G. & Buckley, C. (1988). "Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval". Information Processing & Management, 24(5), 513–523.
Sen, S., Lam, S. K., Rashid, A. M., Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Osterhouse, J., Harper, F. M., Riedl, J. (2006). Tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution. Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work , 181–190.
Sen, S., Harper, F. M., LaPitz, A., & Riedl, J. (2007). The quest for quality tags. Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work , pp. 361–370.
 

Sinclair, J., & Cardew-Hall, M. (2008). The folksonomy tag cloud: when is it useful? Journal of Information Science, 34(1), 15-29.
Soergel, D. (1994). Indexing and retrieval performance: The logical evidence. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(8), 589-599.
Spärck Jones, K. (1972). A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 28(1), 11–21.
Spiteri, L. F. (2007). Structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library catalogue. Webology, 4(2). Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://www.webology.ir/2007/v4n2/a41.html
Spiteri, L. F. (2010). Incorporating Facets into Social Tagging Applications: An Analysis of Current Trends. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 48(1), 94-109.
Trant, J. (2009). Studying social tagging and folksonomy: a review and framework. Journal Of Digital Information, 10(1), 1-42.
Voβ, J. (2007). Tagging, Folksonomy & Co-Renaissance of Manual Indexing. 10th international Symposium for Information Science, Cologne, Germany . Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cs/pdf/0701/0701072v2.pdf
Weinreich, H., Obendorf, H., Herder, E., & Mayer, M. (2006). Off the beaten tracks: exploring three aspects of web navigation. Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, 133–142.
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (2011). Tag cloud. Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloud#cite_note-10
Wu, H., Zubair, M., & Maly, K. (2006). Harvesting social knowledge from folksonomies. Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on Hypertext and hypermedia , 111–114.
Xu, Z., Fu, Y., Mao, J., & Su, D. (2006). Towards the semantic web: Collaborative tag suggestions. Paper presented at the Collaborative Web Tagging Workshop at WWW2006, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom. Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://www.semanticmetadata.net/hosted/taggingws-www2006-files/13.pdf
Yi, K., & Chan, L. M. (2009). Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings: an exploratory study. Journal of Documentation, 65(6), 872-900.