臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

現今學術領域中，對示能性內涵與認知仍多有不一，最早由吉布森提出之概念乃是源自於環境與生物間的可能性為論點，探討環境誘發生物產生行為，進而發展相應間的關係；而後諾曼將其轉化為直覺性概念，並應用於設計領域中，提供研究者與設計師在產品規劃時的思考方式，其與直覺性概念雖有相近，但本質仍不相同。據此，本研究旨在發掘使用者與產品間之可能性與對應性，列舉各項原則並整合為一套評估法則，不僅可實際運用於學術研究中，更能透過評價法釐清癥結點，避免錯誤產生，將設計導引至正確方向並落實於人性需求之準則上。
整體研究架構分為兩部分，第一部分乃是整合示能性要素與通用設計來建立新的評價法;第二部分改良使用者介面做二次評價分析，確保實驗之嚴謹與準確性。實驗樣本以現今普及作業系統為主，包括Android、Windows和iOS，及本研究設計之User介面，共四款相互比較，透過模糊分析取得數據結果，不僅能提高實驗準確性，更能深入分析問題，掌握改善要點，進而產出最佳介面設計方案，亦是本研究所著重之層面與含意。

In nowadays research field, the definition and recognition of affordance for people are quite different. Gibson is the earliest to propose concept of affordance which derived from possibility between creatures and environment, the thesis discussed that environment entices creatures to have certain actions and further develop interactive relation. Later, Norman transferred the former concept into a kind of intuitive concept which has applied to design field and offered researchers and designers a new thinking way in product planning. Even though the concept of affordance approximates to intuitive design, the essences of two concepts are quite different. Thus, the target of this study is to uncover possibility and affordance between products and users, list and integrate principles of affordance into a set of evaluation not only can examine design through the evaluation but also lead design toward correct direction based on human requirement. The framework of research contains two parts, the first part is to integrate the elements of affordance and universal design and construct a new evaluation; in second part, the user interface would be revised and second evaluating analysis would be conducted to ensure and verify credibility and accuracy of the experiment. The experimental examples are based on present common systems, including four examples: Android, Windows, iOS and the interface developed in this study. The four interface would be compared with each other interactively. The statistics would derived from fuzzy analysis which could enhance the accuracy of experiment and further analyze the design issues. Therefore, researchers and design workers could seize the key point of improvement for design tasks, and then generate the best interface design is significance of this study.

摘要 II
SUMMARY III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS V
LIST OF TABLES IX
LIST OF FIGURES XI
CHAPER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 The research background 1
1.2 The research motivation 2
1.3 The purpose of the research 3
1.4 The limitation of research 4
1.5 The research framework 5
CHAPTER 2 PREVOUS LITERATURE 8
2.1 Affordance 8
2.1.1. The Chinese translation of affordance 8
2.1.2. The history of affordance 8
2.1.3. The discussion of affordance 10
2.1.4. Affordance and design 13
2.1.5. The application of affordance to the design field 14
2.1.6. The state of affordance to the design field 14
2.2 Universal design 21
2.2.1. Defined of universal design 22
2.2.2. The principle of universal design 22
2.2.3. Universal design and design 24
2.2.4. The application of affordance to the design field 25
2.3 User interface 26
2.3.1. Defined of universal design 27
2.3.2. The principles of user interface design 27
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 31
3.1 Questionnaire Survey 31
3.2 Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP 32
3.3 Factor Analysis Approach 36
3.4 Fuzzy theory 37
3.5 Evaluation rule of affordance 39
3.6 Evaluation of universal design 43
3.7 Evaluation of interface design 45
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH PROCEDURE AND EXPERIMENT ANALYSIS 47
4.1 The research of process 47
4.2 Establish evaluation item 49
4.2.1. Criteria collection of affordance 49
4.2.2. Universal criteria collection 50
4.2.3. The construction for Evaluation of Affordance and Universal design 51
4.2.4. The construction for Evaluation of user interface 54
4.3 The construction of the weight for the evaluation 55
4.3.1. The weight for the evaluation of affordance and universal design 55
4.3.2. The weight for the evaluation of user interface 56
4.4 Task experiments and evaluation 58
4.4.1. Interface sample selection 58
4.4.2. Participant selection 61
4.4.3. Define problem and task structure 61
4.4.4. Establish questionnaire 70
4.4.5. Establish environment of experiment 70
4.5 Analysis of evaluation 71
4.5.1. Total calculation and primary analysis 71
4.5.2. Importing weights and detailed analysis 74
4.5.3. Result authentication and evaluation decision 84
4.6 Problem discussion and modification 85
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 87
5.1 Research Achievement and Contribution 87
5.2 Follow-up Research and Suggestion 88
REFERENCES 90
Appendix 1通用設計與示能性語彙詞符合程度問卷 97
Appendix 2比較示能性與通用設計評價法各項目之重要度問卷 100
Appendix 3比較介面設計評價法各項目之重要度問卷 104
Appendix 4評價法於Android介面之符合度選擇問卷 108
Appendix 5評價法於windows介面之符合度選擇問卷 115
Appendix 6評價法於iOS介面之符合度選擇問卷 122
Appendix 7評價法於User介面之符合度選擇問卷 129
Appendix 8 EAU之Android介面模糊評判矩陣 136
Appendix 9 EAU之Windows介面模糊評判矩陣 137
Appendix 10 EAU之iOS介面模糊評判矩陣 138
Appendix 11 EAU之User介面模糊評判矩陣 139
Appendix 12 EUI之Android介面模糊評判矩陣 140
Appendix 13 EUI之Windows介面模糊評判矩陣 141
Appendix 14 EUI之iOS介面模糊評判矩陣 142
Appendix 15 EUI之User介面模糊評判矩陣 143
Appendix 16 EAU之Android介面模糊評判矩陣-加權 144
Appendix 17 EAU之Windows介面模糊評判矩陣-加權 145
Appendix 18 EAU之iOS介面模糊評判矩陣-加權 146
Appendix 19 EAU之User介面模糊評判矩陣-加權 147
Appendix 20 EUI之Android介面模糊評判矩陣-加權 148
Appendix 21 EUI之Windows介面模糊評判矩陣-加權 149
Appendix 22 EUI之iOS介面模糊評判矩陣-加權 150
Appendix 23 EUI之User介面模糊評判矩陣-加權 151

Ben Shneiderman, Catherine Plaisant, Maxine Cohen, Steven Jacobs 著，賴錦慧 譯（2010）. 人機介面設計 Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. 台灣培生教育出版，東華總經銷。

Jenny Preece 著，陳建豪 譯（1998）. 人機介面與互動入門：電腦之人因工程. 和碩科技文化有限公司。

Woods, T. ＆ Chung, J.,（2001）.消費者親合性介面設計. 設計Vol.97，中華民國對外貿易發展協會，台北，頁7。

中川 聰（2008）. Universal Design通用設計的法則──從人性出發的設計學. 博碩文化編譯。

中川 聰（2006）. 通用設計的教科書【增訂版】. 日經設計編著，龍溪國際圖書。

周雅筑（2006）.環球股票型基金績效綜合指標--因素分析法. 碩士論文，國立中山大學。

王思佳、陳力豪、李傳房（2008）. 探討產品所呈現的Affordances─以數位相機為例.碩士論文，雲林科技大學。

余虹儀（2006）. 國內外通用設計況探討與案例應用之研究. 碩士論文，實踐大學。

李尹婷（2009）. 建立產品「操作可見性」之線上評價模式. 碩士論文，國立成功大學。

林振陽、蕭世文、羅際鋐、柯雅娟（2009）. 應用模糊理論於創意形態設計之發展. 南華大學應用藝術與設計學報，第四期，頁25-37。

林俊男、游蕙瑜、陳淑芬（2001）.從生物、心理符號角度解讀Affordance理論意義.雲林科技大學工業設計研究所。

後藤武、佐佐木正人、深澤直人（2008）. 不為設計而設計-最好的設計: 生態學的設計論. 黃友玫譯，漫遊者文化。

許鳳火（1997）. 產品設計之理念與方法 . 大同公司印刷中心，台北市。

陳中（2008）. 改良式通用設計評估模式運用於產品設計之研究-以傘架為例 . 碩士論文，大同大學。

曾思瑜（2003）.「從無障礙設計」到「通用設計」美日兩國無障礙環境理念變遷與發展過程設計學報，第8卷，第2期，p57- p74。

游曉貞（2001）. 正規化承擔特質描述語法於產品設計之初探 . 銘傳大學2001年設計學院學術研討會。
黃俊英（19961）.行銷研究」，華泰書局。

溫智全（2009）. 雨傘握柄之設計研究 . 碩士論文，私立南華大學。

蔡旺晉、李傳房（2002）. 通用設計發展概況與應用之探討 . 工業設計，第107 期，p 284- p289。

鄧振源、曾國雄（1989）. 層級分析法（AHP）的內涵特性與應用（上）. 中國統計學報，第27卷，第6期，p 1-p15。

鄧振源、曾國雄（1989）. 層級分析法（AHP）的內涵特性與應用（下）.中國統計學報，第27卷，第7期，p5-p22。

鄭宇杰（2002）. 電腦輔助設計於產品操作介面開發階段之研究 . 碩士論文，成功大學。

豐田汽車（2005）. http://www.megaweb.gr.jp/Uds/About/collection_DB/private/pv03.html

蘇俊毅（2005）. 日常生活中推與拉的Affordance. 碩士論文，國立成功大學。

網頁部分：
eprice 比價王 http://www.eprice.com.tw/mobile/

Martin C. Carlisle, (1999). A Truly Implementation Independent GUI Development Tool.

Bettye Rose Connell, Mike Jones, Ron Mace, Jim Mueller, Abir Mullick, Elaine Ostroff, Jon Sanford, Ed Steinfeld, Molly Story, ＆ Gregg Vanderheiden, (1997). The Center for Universal Design, Available at: http://www.extension.org/pages/24186/7-principles-of-universal-design.

Chemero, A, (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances Ecological Psychology Vol.15, No.2, pp.181-195.

Fadel G. M., Maier, J. R. A, (2006). Affordance-Based Design: Status and Promise, Proc. of Int＇l Design Research Symposium, Seoul, Korea, pp.67-80.

Free On-Line Dictionary Of Computing, http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/index.html , Copyright Denis Howe,1993-1999.

Galvao,A,B., Sato,K., (2005). Affordance in Product Architechture: Linking Technical Functions and Users’ Tasks, ASME 2005 International Design Engneering Technical Conference ＆ Computers and information in Engineering Conference, USA, pp.1-11.

Gaver, W, (1991). Technology affordances, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Reaching through Technology, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp.79-84.

Gibson, J. J., (1997). The theory of affordances, In R. E. Shaw ＆ J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gibson, James J, (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Haines, V., Mitchell, V., Cooper, C. ＆ Maguire, M, (2007). Probing user values in the home environment within a technology driven smart home project. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11, pp.349-359.

Hartson, H.R., (2003). Cognitive, Physical and Perceptual Affordances in Interaction Design, Behaviour and Information Technology Vol.22, No.5, pp.15-338.

High-Tech Dictionary, http://www.currents.net/resources/dictionary/ , Copyright 1994 - 1999 Computer Currents Publishing Corp.

Hsiao-chen You, (2007). Kuohsiang Chen, Applications of affordance and semantics in product design Design Studies 28, pp.23-38.

Jakob Nielsen, (1995). 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. Available at: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/

Koffka, K., (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
McGrenere, J. and Ho, W., (2000). Affordances：clarifying and evolving a concept .In Proccedings of Graphics Interface 2000, Montreal, pp.179-186.

Norman, D. A., (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.

Norman, D. A., (1981). Categorization of action slips. Psychology Review, 88, pp.1-15.

PAUL CAIRNS1 AND HAROLD THIMBLEBY, Affordance and Symmetry in User Interfaces, THE COMPUTER JOURNAL, Vol.51, No.6, pp.650-661, 2008.

Phil Turner, (2005). Affordance as context, Interacting with Computers 17, pp.787-800.

Reason, J .T., (1991). Human Error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, UK.

Saaty, T. L., (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Stone, R.B., Wood, K. L., and Crawford, R. H., (2000). A Heuristic Method for Identifying Modules for Product Architectures, Design Studies, Vol.21, No.1, pp.5-31.

Shih-Wen Hsiao, Chiao-Fei Hsu ＆ Yin-Ting Lee (2012), An online affordance evaluation model for product design, Design Studies 33, 126-159.

Tidwell Jenifer, (2012). Designing interfaces, second edition: patterns for effective interaction design.

Toshiki Yamaoka et al., (2002). A Proposal for Universal Design Practical Guideline, International Conference for Universal Design in Japan 2002, Japan.

T. L., Saaty, (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary?, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.45, No.1, pp.85-91.

T. L., Saaty, (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary?, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.38, No.3-4, pp.233-244.

Turvey, M T, (2005). Affordances and prospective control: an outline of the Valerie Beecher, Victor Paquet Survey instrument for the universal design of consumer products, Applied Ergonomics 36, pp.363-372.

Vihma,S, Products As Representations - a semiotic and aesthetic study of design products, University of Art and Design Helsinki UIAH,1995.

Warren, W.H., (1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing, Journal of Experimental.

Wellman, B , Quan-Haase, A, Boase, J , Chen, W, Hampton , K, Diaz , I , and Miyata ,K,(2003). The Social Affordances of the Internet for Networked Individualism.

W. B. Lee, H. Lau, Z. Z. Liu and S. Tam, (2001). A Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach in Nodular Product Design, Expert Systems, Vol.18, No.1, pp.32-42.