隨著網路資訊之普及，運用資訊科技建構的數位化博物館是新世代博物館的發展趨勢。而一個好的博物館網站介面設計應該能夠讓瀏覽者自由瀏覽主題，在不會產生迷失感之下快速達到預期目的，並在瀏覽過程中產生愉悅之感受，進而提升瀏覽者再瀏覽之意願及學習成效。由於隱喻其特性，應用於介面設計上能幫助使用者與資訊系統之間的溝通，故本研究期望應用隱喻之概念，於數位博物館介面設計上，能幫助瀏覽者在瀏覽網站時建立其對實體博物館之認知地圖，減少網路瀏覽時之迷失感；同時透過愉悅性設計，增加其瀏覽之愉悅感受。
本研究透過相關文獻探討，針對使用者介面研究中之隱喻、尋路行為、互動設計、網頁設計、及博物館相關文獻進行分析，以作為後續數位博物館介面設計之依據。實驗之進行分為兩個階段，第一階段實驗以現有博物館網站為探討對象，透過專家及一般使用者訪談方式，針對現有數位博物館網站之導覽方式、互動性及愉悅性做一分析。第二階段實驗以研究者自行設計之虛擬數位設計博物館介面原型為探討對象，依據文獻探討及第一階段實驗結果為背景，設計出三組數位博物館之模擬介面原型，分別為：(1)參考一般博物館設計型式之控制組、(2)加入樓層隱喻概念之樓層隱喻組、(3)延續樓層隱喻概念之外又加入虛擬導覽人員搭配動態畫面之互動愉悅組，以驗證研究之假設。第二階段實驗採取2(高低使用經驗)X3(三組數位設計博物館實驗介面原型)之雙因子實驗設計，讓受測者針對一般數位博物館常用之功能，進行一連串的任務操作，除量測其操作時間績效之外，並透過互動性與愉悅性評量表、主觀感受SUS量表與量測工作負荷程度之NASA-TLX量表結果分析，最後統整提出結論與建議，期望透過本研究之結果，作為數位博物館網站介面設計上改進之依據以及提供設計者在製作愉悅性數位博物館網頁之參考。本研究結果如下：
1. 樓層隱喻組比起控制組，更容易直覺式進行操作，證明樓層隱喻概念應用於數位博物館介面設計上，確實能幫助使用者快速產生正確之心智模式，在較短之時間內達到一定之學習效率。
2. 應用樓層隱喻概念之樓層隱喻組及互動愉悅組介面，獲得較高之滿意度。
3. 應用樓層隱喻之概念，於數位博物館介面設計上，能夠幫助使用者在瀏覽同時，產生對實體博物館之認知地圖，有助於其在實體環境中的尋路行為。
4. 用樓層隱喻之概念，於數位博物館介面設計上，能夠幫助使用者在瀏覽同時，更瞭解其在網頁中所處之位置，建立其對網站架構之認知地圖，降低瀏覽時之迷失感。
5. 互動愉悅組之虛擬導覽人員的設計能增加使用者瀏覽數位博物館時之互動性及愉悅性，但其操作方式須建立在良好之使用性上。
6. 高使用經驗族群瀏覽數位博物館時，著重於新展覽活動資訊之提供，對於樓層隱喻組沒有顯著偏好；低使用經驗族群則對於樓層隱喻組有較高之評價。
7. 主觀感受SUS評量表分析結果顯示，三組介面之間沒有顯著差異存在；量測工作負荷程度之NASA-TLX評量表分析結果顯示，三組介面之間沒有顯著差異存在，故在進行數位博物館介面設計時，設計師可以選用能帶給使用者較高互動性及愉悅性之設計方式。

As the pervasion of Internet information, to many new-generation museums, the application of information technology (IT) to facilitate the construction of digital museum is the current development trend. A good museum Website design should allow users efficiently and effectively browse through various exhibition topics without getting disoriented. While interacting with the Website user interfaces, users should not only generate pleasurable perceptions, but also enhance their revisiting intents and learning effects. In addition, the concept of metaphor can facilitate the communication between users and the information system. This study adopts the concept of metaphor when constructing the Website user interface of a digital museum. It is hoped that by so doing can facilitate users construct their cognitive maps regarding concrete museum when they interact with the museum Websites. The rates of their disorientations can be reduced. User can also produce pleasurable perceptions while browsing through the Website.
This study investigates various literatures pertinent to metaphor, wayfinding behavior, interaction design, Webpage design, and museum itself. The generated data were used as bases for the design of digital museums. The experiments in this study were divided into two stages. The first stage was to analyze the browsing strategies, interaction styles, and interface pleasures among currently available digital museums. In the second stage, the prototyped Websites of three digital museums were created based on the results generated from the first stage. These Websites were: (1) the control group which was designed based on the common style of a digital museum; (2) the metaphor group which incorporated the metaphor of floor in the Website user interface; (3) the pleasurable group which adopted both floor metaphor and an animated virtual actor to enhance users’ pleasurable perceptions. A 2 (higher and lower use experience) by 3 (control, metaphor, and pleasure Website prototypes) two-way ANOVA were conducted in stage two. Participants were required to conduct a series of interaction tasks. In addition to measure their task performance, the questionnaires regarding Website interaction and pleasure perceptions, System Usability Scale (SUS), and NASA Task Load Index (NASA TLX) were used to collect their subjective feelings. In the end, the results were generated to help improve the Website user interface of a digital museum and to provide good references for designing a pleasurable Website user interface of digital museum in the future. The results generated in this study revealed that:
(1) The metaphor group is easier to interact with than the control group. Therefore, the floor metaphor used in a digital museum can really help participants construct better mental models that can facilitate their interaction with the Website in a more efficient way.
(2) Participants reveal a better satisfaction when interacting with the metaphor group and the pleasure group because they both were equipped with the floor metaphor.
(3) The application of floor metaphor to the Website user interface of a digital museum can actually help participants construct an accurate cognitive map of a concrete museum. This will help their wayfinding behavior inside a concrete museum.
(4) The application of floor metaphor to the Website user interface of a digital museum can facilitate participants’ navigation and, at the same time, enhance their understandings of current Website location. Moreover, by so doing, participants can easily construct their own cognitive maps regarding the Website structure, which will also reduce the occurrence of possible disorientations while browsing through the Website.
(5) The virtual actor inside the pleasure group can enhance participants’ interaction styles and pleasurable perceptions as long as the Website user interface is created with good usability.
(6) Participants with higher use experience will focus more on the content information. They do not have preference towards floor metaphor. On the contrary, participants with lower use experience will find the floor metaphor more useful.
(7) There exists no statistically significant difference among these three Website prototypes regarding SUS and NASA TLX results. Therefore, interaction designers can create the Website user interface of a digital museum by incorporating pleasurable design factors to enhance users’ interaction experience.

中文文獻
1. 王人弘. (2003). 地下街尋路行為與空間概念建構之研究，私立中原大學建築學系碩士論文，p.7-20。
2. 王姿莉. (2000). 網路中虛擬美術館展示方式對美術鑑賞經驗影響之研究，國立交通大學應用藝術所碩士論文。
3. 王嵩山. (2003). 差異、多樣性與博物館，台北縣：稻鄉。
4. 方裕民. (2003). 人與物的對話-互動介面設計理論與實務，台北市：田園城市。
5. 李世忠. (1993) 使用者介面的探討，視聽教育雙月刊，36卷1期，民國九十二年十月，p.49。
6. 李青蓉等編著. (1998). 人機介面設計，台北縣：空大。
7. 台北市立美術館. (2004, May). 取自：http://www.tfam.gov.tw/
8. 台北當代藝術館. (2004, May). 取自： http://www.mocataipei.org.tw/
9. 洪政欣. (2002). 數位博物館資訊系統整合之探討與實作，暨南國際大學成人資訊工程學系研究所碩士論文。
10. 邱柏清. (2004). 網頁介面愉悅性之研究，國立台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
11. 易斌. (2003). 虛擬設計博物館之互動導覽設計，國立成功大學工業設計研究所碩士論文。
12. 姜宗模. (2002). 中小學教師運用數位博物館設計教學活動中之學習-以國科會數位博物館教學活動設計比賽得獎者為例，暨南國際大學成人與繼續教育研究所碩士論文。
13. 胡嘉昕. (2002). 捷運台北車站空間環境與標示系統使用後評估之研究-以使用者尋路的觀點探討，國立台北科技大學建築與都市設計研究所碩士論文。
14. 高蓁瑩. (2002). 不同族群於博物館網站介面操作之研究-以國立自然科學博物館為例，國立雲林科技大學視覺傳達設計研究所碩士論文。
15. 許明潔. (2000) 數位媒體企畫與設計，台北：龍溪國際圖書。
16. 許峻誠、張恬君、莊明振. (2001). 網頁風格認知與設計要素之探討─以企業網站首頁為例，第六屆設計學術研究成果研討會論文集，頁595-600。
17. 陳冠燁. (2002). 建築空間性的認知地圖，國立交通大學建築研究所碩士論文。
18. 陳格理. (1999). 圖書館尋路工作之理念與設計，中國圖書館學會會報，第62期，p.119~134。
19. 陳建雄. (1999). 由使用者導向互動設計之觀點探討介面可用性(Interface Usability in User-Centered Interaction Design)，銘傳大學跨世紀國際學術研討會論文集，銘傳大學，p.99-109。
20. 陳建雄、蔡佳穎、邱柏清. (2003). 網頁介面之愉悅性探討，中華民國人因工程學會2003年研討會論文集，逢甲大學，民國92年3月15日，p.393-399。
21. Powell, T. A.著，黃俊卿譯，（2001），Web Design設計實務：徹底研究，台北：麥格羅希爾。（原著出版年：2000）。
22. Preece, J. (1988). A Guide to Usability-Human Factors in Computing (人機介面與互動入門)，陳建豪譯，台北：和碩科技文化。
23. 陳國寧. (2003). 博物館學，台北縣：空大。
24. 陳媛 (2002). 博物館四論，台北市：國家出版社。
25. 黃如足. (2002). 美術館網頁設計及使用性之研究，南華大學美學與藝術管理研究所碩士論文。
26. 黃信豪. (2003). 捷運車站尋路設計評估架構建立之研究，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系碩士論文。
27. 黃冠華. (2003). 探討聲音屬性對於階層性網頁架構之對應關係，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文。
28. 童侑祥. (2001). 隱喻手法於產品造形發展之應用，國立台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
29. 國立故宮博物院. (2004, May). 取自：http://www.npm.gov.tw/
30. 國際博物館協會. (2003, November 5). 取自：http://www.icom.org/icofom
31. 國家科學委員會. (1998, November 5). 取自：http://web.nsc.gov.tw/
32. 楊欣哲、王超宏. (1999). WWW網頁設計之準則與應用，中國工業工程學會，第16卷第2期，p265-275。
33. 楊雅淳. (2001). 從使用者中心探討影視娛樂網頁介面設計原則-以電影公司網頁介面為例，銘傳大學設計管理研究所碩士論文。
34. 蔡佳穎 (2004). 使用者介面愉悅性之研究-以兒童藝術類學習網站為例，國立台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
35. 劉純芳. (2000). 全球資訊網路使用者瀏覽行為分析，輔仁大學圖書資訊學系碩士論文。
36. 劉家倫. (2000). 台灣美術館全球資訊網站的內容規劃與品質評估之研究，國立臺灣師範大學美術研究所碩士論文。
37. 數位典藏國家型科技計畫. (2002, November 5). 取自：http://dlm.ntu.edu.tw/dlm/index.htm
38. 賴艾如. (2003). 平面廣告中隱喻之基底域與目標域相似性類型探討，銘傳大學設計管理研究所碩士論文。
39. 鍾國文 (2004). 博物館網站視覺設計之探討-以「北投溫泉博物館網站」設計創作為例，國立師範大學設計研究所碩士論文。

英文文獻
1. Arthur, P., & Passini, R. (1992). Wayfinding, People, Sign and Architecture. Cambridge, MA: McGraw-Hill.
2. Bauman, K., & Thomas, B. (2001). User Interface Design for Electronic Appliance, New York: Taylor & Francis.
3. Best, G. (1970). Direction-finding in Large Building. Architectural Psychology. RIBA Publication.
4. Bitgood, S. (1994). Designing effective exhibits: Criteria for success, exhibit design approach, and research strategies. Visitor Behavior, 9(4), p.4-15
5. Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art. (2004, May) From： http://www.bmoca.org/
6. Carpman, J., Grant, M., & Simmons, D. (1992). No more Mazes Research about Design for Wayfinding in Hospitals. Ann Arbor, MI: U. of Michigan, p.12.
7. Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. (2000). Embodied Conversational Agents. Cambridge: MIT Press.
8. Chen, C.-W., You, M.-L., & Chiou, S.-C. (2003). Psycho-pleasurability of Maps for Wayfinding，Proceedings of the 6th Asian Design International Conference, October 14-17, Tsukuba, Japan, p.1-8. (in CD-ROM form)
9. Daphne, E., William, M., Steve, P., & James, M., (2001) User Centried Virtual Actor Technology. Proccedings od VAST.
10. Denis, M.(1997). The description of routs: A cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 16, p.409-458.
11. Design museum in Londaon. (2004, May) From： http://www.designmuseum.org/
12. Douglas, Y. & Hargadon, A. (2000). The pleasure principle: Immersion, engagement, flow. Proceedings of the 11th ACM on Hypertext and Hypermedia, San Antonio, Texas, USA, p. 153-160.
13. Downs, R. (1979). Mazes,Mind,and Maps. R.R.Bowker, p.18-19.
14. Eaton, G. (1992). Wayfinding in a Library: Book Searches and Route Uncertainty, 30(4), Summer, p.523-525.
15. Elm, W. C. & Woods, D. D. (1985). Getting lost: a case study in interface design. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, p.927-931.
16. Evans, G., Fellons J., Zorm, M., & Doty, K. (1980). Cognitive Mapping and Architecture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, p.475.
17. Forhich, & Murphy (1999). The GUI Style Guide, Cambridage, MA: Academic Press.
18. Hansen, W. J. (1971). User engineering principles for interactive systems, Proceedings of the AFIPS Conference, Monvale, NJ: AFIPS Press.
19. Houston, H. Chrr (1992). Factor That Affect User-Friendliness in Interactive Computer Programs，Information & Management, 22 , p.137
20. Hsu, Y. C. (2000). The effects of varying levels of interface cues derived from metaphors on computer users information search performance, Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, USA
21. Hutchins, E. (1989). Metaphors for Interface Design. In Taylor, M., Neel, F., & Bouwhuis, D. (Eds.), The Structure of Multimodal Dialogue.(pp. 11-28) North-Holland： Elsevier Science Publishers.
22. Ingwerron, P. (1982). Research Procedures in the Library: Analyzed from the Cognitive Point of View. Joumal of Documentation, 38(4), Sept, p.194.
23. Jordan, P. W. (1998). Human factors for pleasure in product use. Applied Ergonomics, 29(1), p.25-33.
24. Jordan, P. W. (2001). Pleasure with products: The new human factors. In Baumann, K. & Thomas, B. (Eds.), User Interface Design for Electronic Appliances. London: Taylor and Francis.
25. Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing Pleasurable Products: An Introduction to the New Human Factors. London: Taylor and Francis.
26. Jordan, P. W., & Green, W. S. (2002). Pleasure with the Use of Products. London: Taylor and Francis.
27. Kraut, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukhopadhyay, & Scherlis. (2002). Why People Use the Internet? Carnegie Mellon University, http://homenet.hcii. cs.cmu.edu/progress/purpose.html.
28. Lin, L. Y. (1989). Learning to use hypertext systems with metaphors: An interface design perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
29. Ljungblad, S., Skog, T., & Holmquist, L. E. (2003). From usable to Enjoyable Information Display. In M. A. Blythe, K. Overbeeke, A. F. Monk, & P. C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
30. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
31. Malone, T. W. (1982). Heuristics for Designing Enjoyable User Interface: Lessons from computer games. Proceedings of the 1st Major Conference on Human factors in Computer Systems. Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, p.63-68.
32. Marcus, A. (2002). The cult of cute: The challenge of user experience design. Interactions, 9(6), p.29-34.
33. Mark Billinghurst, Hirokazu Kato, & Ivan Poupyrev (2001). The MagicBook: A Transitional AR Interface. Compters & Graphics, 25, p.745-753.
34. Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and Personality. (Second ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
35. Maglio, P., & Matlock, T. (1997). Untangling talk about the World-Wide Web. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Santa Cruz, Psychology Department.
36. Musee d'Orsay. (2004, May) From： http://www.musee-orsay.fr/
37. Museum of Contempoary Art. (2004, May) From： http://www.mca.com.au/
38. Nepon, J. B., & Cates, W. M. (1996). Building coping skills on a firm foundation： Using a metaphorical interface to deliver stress management instruction. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN, p.71-79
39. Nielsen, J. & Tahir, M. (2002). Homepage Usability: 50 Websites Deconstructed. GrandTech C. G. Systems Inc.
40. O’Neill, M. (1991). Effects of Signage and Floor Plan Configuration on Wayfinding Accuracy. Environment and Behavior, 23(5), Sept, p.556-559.
41. Preece, J. Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons
42. Shneiderman, B. (1983). Human Engineering Management Plan for Interactive systems. IEEE Computer Society Press, Sliver Spring, M.D.
43. Smilowitz, E. D. (1995). Metaphors in user interface design： An empirical investigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University.
44. Sparacino, F. (2002). The Museum Wearable: Real-Time Sensor-Driven Understanding of Visitor’s Interests for Personalized Visually-Augmented Museum Experiences.，Museums and the Web, Boston, April 17-20 , p.1-10.
45. Taylor, H. A., Naylor, S. J., & Chechile, N. A.(1999). Goal-specific influences on the representation of spatial perspectives. Memory of Cognition, 27, p.309-319
46. The Hakone Open-air Museum (2004, May) From： http://www.hakone-oam.or.jp/
47. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. (2004, May) From： http://www.metmuseum.org/
48. The Victoria & Albert Museum. (2004, May) From： http://www.vam.ac.uk/
49. Tokyo National Museum. (2004, May) From： http://www.tnm.go.jp/
50. Tversky, B., & Lee P.(1999). Pictorial and Verbal Tools for Conveying Routes. Paper presented at the COSIT ’99 – CONFERENCE ON SPATIAL INFORMATION THEORY, Stade / near Hamburg, Germeny.
51. Weisman, J. (1981). Evaluating Architectural Legibility: Wayfinding in the Built Environment. Environment and Behavior, 13(2), March, p.194.
52. Wooldridge M. J. & Jennings N. R., (1998). Pitfalls of Agent-Oriented Development. In Proc of The Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents, p.385-391.
53. Zeitzer D., Johnson M. B., (1994). Virtual Actors and Virtual Environments. In: Interacting with Virtual Enviroments. p.229-255.