隨著互聯網技術的進步，網路調查逐漸取代紙本問卷，成為現今社群中隨處可見的問卷傳遞方式。知名問卷平台SurveyMonkey創立至今已累計四千萬名使用者，新興的問卷調查品牌也日益出現，於此可見，網路調查對未來研究的影響力。而本研究目的為針對問卷調查平台問卷設計流程，探究其介面中介面劃分方式和操作引導的使用性。企圖幫助未來研究者能夠更高效的操作問卷調查平台，獲得更正確的研究成果。

本研究分為兩部分的實驗：(1)前導性實驗：針對現有平台進行測試，以數據探索平台介面的可能問題，再藉由半結構式訪談，找到影響受測者操作的真正因素。(2)驗證實驗：根據前導性實驗結果，設計驗證實驗之模擬樣本，檢視操作引導與介面劃分方式，對於問卷設計流程使用性的影響，並由此抓取受測者對樣本的主觀偏好，與未來設計可能的發展概念。

驗證實驗採2 (介面劃分方式) x 3 (操作引導型式)雙因子實驗，執行「介面劃分方式」採兩階：(1)分立式：藉由明確的區隔工具放置區塊，與問題編輯區塊，將平台功能展開於工具區中；(2)混合式：介面中僅有一個明確的工作區，操作所需的新建工具，出現在正在工作的區塊附近。而「操作引導型式」分三階：(1)提示框引導：在目標功能附近，彈出附有簡易操作提示框；(2)圖標與文字說明：針對介面上所有功能和輸入框，給予圖標和文字範例；(3)圖標提示：介面上所有功能鈕，皆由圖標傳達其功能意涵。

研究結果為：(1)「提示框引導」是三種操作引導中，最能夠幫助受測者提升使用績效的。在後續訪談時，發現若將之與圖標及文字說明做整合，可帶來更優良的使用性；(2)「分立式」是兩種介面劃分方式中，操作表現較佳的型式。而其在SUS評分中，未能高於均值的原因，與後續訪談所得一致，皆表示於較簡易的操作設置時，使用者更青睞於混合式的介面劃分方式。(3)「圖標提示」無法協助使用者操作問卷設計，在問卷流程的介面設計中，應盡可能只有圖標提示的情況發生；(4) 除了操作引導和介面劃分方式，資料庫的發展與平台功能的行銷方式，皆影響平台使用性。

Following the development of the Internet industry, online surveys become more accessible and efficient. Today many researchers prefer doing the survey online instead of using paper and pencil. One of the famous online survey platforms, SurveyMonkey, has already been subscribed by more than 40 million users. Furthermore, there are many different kinds of online survey services have been launched into the market. The purpose of this study is to explore the operating instructions and interface layout of the questionnaire design process in the online survey services. Finally, this study summed up some points from user testing and offered design directions to future online survey services.

There are two stages in the experiment of this study: (1) Pre-test: Doing research on the operating process of the three existing online survey services and analyzing the user testing for understanding the impact and differences of different functions. (2) Verification experiment: Based on the result of Pre-test, this experiment offered six prototypes and tried to find that which is the best operating instruction and interface layout for the users; which solutions might offer the future online survey services the better directions.

The verification experiment was conducted on a 2 (Interface layouts) x 3 (operating instructions) two-factor experiment. Firstly, the interface layouts are (1) Splitting the interface into two separate blocks (toolbar and questionnaire) clearly. (2) Combining toolbar and questionnaire into one space. Secondly, the operating instructions are divided into three levels (1) message bar; (2) icon and text; (3) icon.

The result showed that: (1) Message bar is the most efficient option in these three operating instructions. However, the conclusion of user interviews shows that most users prefer reading icon and text in common situations but only need message bars in some special situation. (2) “Spilting interface into two separate blocks” offers a better operating environment for the user. However, the result showed that both of these two interface layouts cannot pass the examination of the system usability scale. Furthermore, some of the users prefer using “Combining toolbar and questionnaire into one space” during the easy settings but working on “Splitting interface into two separate blocks” during the complicated questions. (3) It is not clear enough for explaining the functions of the survey platform by only showing icon. (4) In the user interview, many users advise that online survey services can offer some question database and sample questionnaires to evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of making questionnaires. Furthermore, the users also recommend that platforms can share these new functions in their advertisement on social media for letting their subscribers know how the functions work and how useful they are.

英文文獻
1. Baskin, W. (Trans.). (1960). Course of general linguistics. New York: Mcgraw-Hill. Saussure. F. de. (1949). Cours de LinguistiqueGe’ne’rale (4th). Paris: Payot.
2. Barthes, R., & Rifat, S. (1998). Roland Barthes. Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
3. Brave, S., Nass, C., & Hutchinson, K. (2005). Computers that care: investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. International journal of human-computer studies, 62(2), 161-178.
4. Card, S. K., Newell, A., & Moran, T. P. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction.
5. Catherine, P. (1979). Encyclopedic dictionary of the sciences oflanguage. Ducrot, O&Todorov, T. (1979). Encyclopedic dictionaryof the sciences of language. Baltimore: John Hopkins University.
6. Couper, M. P. (2000). Review: Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(4), 464-494.
7. Davis FD: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technologies. MIS Quarterly (1989), 319- 339.
8. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003.
9. Deely, J. N. (1982). Introducing semiotic: Its history and doctrine (Vol. 287). Indiana University Press.
10. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
11. Folmer, E., & Bosch, J. (2004). Architecting for usability: a survey. Journal of systems and software, 70(1), 61-78.
12. Gittins, D.T. (1986), “Icon-based Human-Computer Interface”, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24, 519-543.
13. Hassenzahl, M. (2004). Emotions can be quite ephemeral; we cannot design them. interactions, 11(5), 46-48.
14. Hewson, C., Yule, P., Laurent, D., & Vogel, C. (2003). Internet research methods: A practical guide for the behavioural and social sciences. Koch, N. S., & Emrey, J. A. (2001). The Internet and opinion measurement: Surveying marginalized populations. Social Science Quarterly, 82(1), 131-138.
15. Koch, N. S., & Emrey, J. A. (2001). The Internet and opinion measurement: Surveying marginalized populations. Social Science Quarterly, 82(1), 131-138.
16. Laarni, J. (2004). Aesthetic and emotional evaluations of computer interfaces. Aesthetic Approaches to Human-Computer Interaction, 28.
17. Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. (2013). Human information processing: An introduction to psychology. Academic press.
18. McCahill, M. P., and Erickson, T. Design for a 3d spatial user interface for internet gopher. In Proc. of. ED-MEDIA, vol. 95 (1995), 39–44.
19. Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing responses rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research society, 37(4), 429-440.
20. Nielsen, J. (1994, April). Usability inspection methods. In Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, 413-414.
21. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Civitas Books.
22. Norman, D. A., & Ortony, A. (2003, November). Designers and users: Two perspectives on emotion ＆ design. In Proc. of the Symposium on Foundations of Interaction Design at the Interaction Design Institute, Ivrea, Italy.
23. Norman, D. A., Ortony, A., & Russell, D. M. (2003). Affect and machine design: Lessons for the development of autonomous machines. IBM Systems Journal, 42(1), 38-44.
24. Parker, L. (1992). Collecting data the e-mail way. Training & Development, 46(7), 52-55.
25. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 879.
26. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction.
27. Schuldt, B. A., & Totten, J. W. (1994). Electronic mail vs. mail survey response rates. Marketing Research, 6(1), 3-7.
28. Shneiderman, B. (2010). Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Pearson Education India.
29. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
30. Watt, J. (1997). Using the internet for Quantitative Survey Research. Quirks Articles.
31. Wright, P., Blythe, M., & McCarthy, J. (2005). User experience and the idea of design in HCI. In International Workshop on Design, Specification, and Verification of Interactive Systems, 1-14.  

中文文獻
1. Barthes, Rol＆著，洪顯勝譯(1988)。符號學要義。台北：南方。
2. Marcus, C. C., Francis, C., & 俞孔堅(2001)。人性場所城市開放空間設計準則Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space。北京：中國建築工業。
3. 方裕民(2003)。人與物的對話：互動介面設計理論與實務。田園城市文化事業有限公司。
4. 王正明、胡祖武(2004)。使用性在產品創新設計之初探以投影機為例。
5. 王羡欠(2016)。基於Java EE平台的網上調查問卷系统的設計與實現。江西科學，129-132。
6. 江明峰、吳柏林、胡日東(2008)。網路抽樣調查與模糊線上統計。智慧科技與應用統計學報，55-72。
7. 余兆鴻(2005)。設計與實作具專家評鑑機制的網路問卷調查系統平台。
8. 李政忠(2004)。網路調查所面臨的問題與解決建議。資訊社會研究，1-24。
9. 李秦(2015)。基於移動平台的校園在線問卷查系統分析與設計。電腦知識與技術：學術交流，115-116。
10. 周慶華(2000)。中國符號學。揚智文化事業股份有限公司。
11. 周艷玲、王羡欠(2010)。基於PowerBuilder的高等院校試卷分析系統設計。科技廣場，89-91。
12. 林佳梁、陳建雄(2015)。手機購物客戶端互動介面之使用性探討。中華民國設計學會研究論文，666-671。
13. 林承賢(2004)。近五年來臺灣傳播學界博碩士論文使用網路問卷研究方法之后設分析。資訊社會研究，25-57。
14. 林建宏、徐國堂(2013)。roid+ iOS UI Design行動裝置介面設計。台北：佳魁資訊。
15. 張宜慶(1998)。電腦網路德菲研究系統之建構及其可行性研究。國立交通大學傳播研究所碩士論文。
16. 張悟非(1992)。從認知心理的觀點來探討視覺資訊設計的方向。
17. 張毓吟(1995)。圖像符號傳播的語文式思考：以符號學詮釋國劇臉譜為例。台北市立美術館。
18. 許正妹、李傳房(2005)。電子故事書與兒童喜好之研究-人因設計的觀點。數位學習設計與管理學術研討會發表之論文。
19. 蘇蘅、吳淑俊(1997)。電腦網路問卷調查可行性及回覆者特質的研究。新聞學研究，75-100。