目前行動通訊產品隨科技的發展而導入多媒體的應用，使得產品涵蓋的功能愈來愈多，但更多的複合功能就產生更複雜的使用者介面，故本研究透過使用者需求調查，歸納出使用者對於行動多媒體通訊產品的實際功能需求，此外亦結合現有相關產品分析，歸納現有產品使用者介面的共同特徵，進一步將兩者歸納出的資料整合，再應用於本研究的模擬介面設計上。期望透過本研究的實驗成果探討軟體介面顯示形態及硬體介面按鍵配置間的相容性，以輔助使用者在操作行動多媒體通訊產品時能夠建立良好的心智模式，減少操作時的挫折感。
本研究採三因子實驗設計，即2(高低使用經驗) x 3(三組模擬實驗軟體介面) x 2(兩組模擬實驗硬體介面)，受測者需針對一般行動通訊產品常用之功能及影音部份進行實驗操作任務，並量測其操作任務所需之時間及按鍵次數，之後要求受測者填寫系統使用性尺度(System Usability Scale, SUS)量表與量測工作負荷指標之NASA-TLX量表，再將所得資料進行統計分析，以歸納結論及建議。期望本研究之成果能作為未來行動多媒體通訊產品介面設計之參考依據。研究結果說明如下：
1. 六組實驗介面在任務時間績效上之比較
(1) 介面A組之平均操作時間(128.20秒)比B組(168.55秒)與C組(144.75秒)較為快速，原因在起始功能選項畫面操作呈現較為動態，畫面上的回饋形態影響使用者能正確且快速讀取資訊，形成正確的心智模式，達到較好的操作效率。
(2) 在兩種不同硬體配置形態的操作表現上，從有關影音任務的平均操作時間，以影音功能快捷鍵為主(A2,B2,C2)的按鍵配置任務四(28.56秒)及任務五(20.23秒)，操作績效表現上比影音播放快捷鍵為主(A1,B1,C1)的按鍵配置任務四(40.46秒)及任務五(27.03秒)要快，且有顯著差異，績效以影音功能快捷鍵為主(A2,B2,C2)的配置較好，顯示出對於受測者來說，設置直覺式的功能快捷鍵於實質的操作行為會比設置播放快捷鍵來得有幫助。
(3) 以整體的平均時間而言，A組平均操作的時間最快，為128.20秒；其次為C組，平均144.75秒；B組操作平均時間為168.55秒。在三組軟體介面間、兩組硬體介面間以及高低使用經驗上都有顯著差異存在，其原因在於A組軟體介面的整體操作形態可讓受測者在操作時得到較正確的回饋感，增加操作上的效率；而在硬體介面上，功能快捷鍵的設置也讓受測者能以直覺的方式快速進入選單以達到操作目的。
2. 六組實驗介面在任務操作次數上之比較
(1) 在介面操作次數表現上，A組的操作次數(平均59.50次)比B組(平均86.20次)與C組(平均78.50次)少，顯示出A組軟體介面的互動呈現方式有助於受測者在操作時快速的進行確認，以建立相輔的心智模式，進而以直覺進行操作。
(2) 以整體平均操作次數，受測者對具影音功能快捷鍵硬體介面的平均操作次數(64.00次)比以影音播放快捷鍵為主的硬體介面平均操作次數(85.46次)績效好，故受測者皆能適應快捷鍵的路徑，而能迅速找到功能選單達成任務目標。
(3) 以整體操作次數的平均值而言，A組平均點擊的次數最低，為59.50次，其次為C組，平均78.50次，點擊次數最多的為B組，平均86.20次，三者之間有顯著的差異，而A組的效率最高；兩種硬體按鍵的配置上也有顯著差異，以影音功能為快捷鍵，其操作效率較好；使用經驗上也呈現顯著差異，高使用經驗者的效率較好。且以A2介面的軟硬體搭配組合是產生操作績效最好的配置。
3. 系統使用性尺度之分析結果並無顯著的差異存在，但以平均值來看，每組平均值均在總數平均之上，由此可知受測者均認為六組介面均具有良好的使用性。
4. NASA-TLX工作負荷分析：六組介面原型以C組的評價較好，心智負荷較低；其他如時間負荷、精力耗費、表現績效、挫折程度則無顯著差異，各組介面在操作時均沒有明顯的負荷，而C組對受測者在心智及身體上評量較好，可能原因在其介面呈現最為受測者所熟悉，因此在介面設計時，軟體介面可在接近傳統操作方式上進行介面上動態的變化，讓使用者在第一次接觸時可以更容易於掌控介面。

As the progress of mobile communication technology, the application of multimedia was introduced to enhance its functions. The more combined functions may result in more complex user interface design. Therefore, this study first investigates users’ requirements. After that, the practical functional requirements regarding the mobile multimedia communication product were generated and used to help the design of simulated user interface. It is hoped that the research results can facilitate the compatibility between software display layout and hardware button design. By so doing may help designers create better user interfaces when designing with this mobile multimedia communication product and reduce users’ senses of frustrations.
This research study adopts three factors factorial design, i.e., 2 (higher and lower use experience) x 3 (three simulated screen layouts) x 2 (two simulated button designs). Participants were required to conduct interaction tasks that were common to most of the mobile communication products. Their task time and button steps were recorded for further analysis. In addition, after the experiment, participants were asked to fill out the questionnaires of System Usability Scale (SUS) and NASA-Task Load Index (TLX). The findings were further analyzed by SPSS. It is also hoped that the research results can be good references for designing the user interfaces for mobile multimedia communication products in the future. The generated results revealed that:
A. The comparison of participants’ task performances among six experimental interfaces
(1) The average task time of Group A (M=128.20 sec) was significantly faster than Group B (M=168.55 sec) and Group C (M=144.75 sec). This is because the initial screen for function selection was designed with dynamic considerations which can provide better feedback to the participants and help them understand the screen information quickly. The user can also produce better mental models which enable better task performance.
(2) When comparing two different button designs by asking participants to interact with audio and video functions, participants’ average task time (Task 4 was 28.56 sec and Task 5 was 20.23 sec) regarding the interaction with the button (i.e., A2, B2, C2) designed specifically for these functions were significantly faster than that with only play function (i.e., A1, B1, C1) in the same tasks (Task 4 was 40.46 sec and Task 5 was 27.03 sec). Therefore, designing buttons based on participants’ intuitions, such as in A2, B2, C2, may actually help participants conduct the audio and video functions.
(3) Among the overall task time, Group A is the fast (M=128.20 sec). Group C (M=144.75 sec) is the next. Group B (M=168.55 sec) is the last. Statistically significant differences were also found among three variables (i.e., 2 experience levels, 3 screen layouts, and 2 button designs). The reasons can be that Group A provides better feedback to the participants and increase their task performance. In addition, the button designed based on participants’ intuitions can also help them reach the task goal more quickly.
A. The comparison of participants’ task steps among six experimental interfaces
(1) The average task steps of Group A (M=59.50) was significantly less than Group B (M=86.20) and Group C (M=78.50). This is because the screen layout of Group A can help participants quickly identify function and facilitate them to construct better mental models. Therefore, participants can interact with the user interface based on their intuitions.
(2) When comparing the over task steps, participants who interacted with the button designed specifically for audio and video functions significantly spent less steps (M=64.00) than those who interacted with only play function (M=85.46). This is because participants can understand the functions of the buttons and quickly find the menu functions to achieve the task goals.
(3) The results generated for the System Usability Scale did not reveal any significant differences. However, their scores were all higher than the average which means that participants thought all of the six user interface designs were equipped with pretty good interface usability.
(4) The results generated from the NASA TLK revealed that Group C showed lower Mental demand. Other measures, such as Physical demand, Temporal demand, Effort, Performance, and Frustration showed no significant differences. This can be the reason that the screen layout of Group C is familiar by the participants. Therefore, participants could have more control when interacting with that user interface.

參考文獻
中文文獻
1. 三岡俊樹. (1998). 螢幕畫面介面設計，中日設計教育研討會論文集，雲林科技大學，p.74-75。
2. 方裕民. (1999). GUI界面設計理論與實務-以家庭娛樂系統設計案為例，中日設計教育研討會論文集，雲林科技大學，p.47-60。
3. 方裕民. (2003). 人與物的對話-互動介面設計理論與實務，台北：田園城市。
4. 田永祥、陳建雄. (2004). 數位設計助理之需求分析與應用研究，2004國際設計論壇暨第九屆中華民國設計學會設計學術研討會論文集，成功大學，民國93年5月29-30日，p.503-508。
5. 李青蓉、施郁芬、魏丕信與邱昭彰. (1997). 人機介面設計，國立空中大學用書。
6. 馬家湘. (1982). 工業設計-產品開發之創意及實施，龍山出版社。
7. Martegani, P. & Montenegro, R. (2002). New Design: New frontiers for the objects (工業設計產品的新疆域)，陳珍誠譯，北星圖書公司。
8. 鄭伯燻. (1990). 領導與情境-互動心理學研究途徑，大洋出版社。
9. 黃崇冀. (1988). 簡介：人之因素與電腦介面-人機因素及系統，松崗電腦圖書資料有限公司。
10. Burdek, B. E. (1996). Design: Geschichte, theorie und praxis der produktgestalung(工業設計：產品造形的歷史、理論及實務)，胡佑宗譯，台北市：亞太圖書。
11. Tangard, P. (2003). Introduction to Cognitive Science (心智-認知科學導論)，屠名正譯，五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
12. 陳建雄、蔡佳穎. (2003). 數位錄音筆介面之操作性研究，數位化設計技術之發展研討會論文集/工業設計，明志技術學院，民國92年11月13日，第三十一卷，第二期，p.194-200。
13. 吳建合. (2002). 小型資訊產品介面操作性研究-以行動電話為例，台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
14. 林志展. (2001). 虛擬實境網路瀏覽器之操作介面分析與設計，台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
15. 林怡君、陳建雄. (2005). 使用者對平面與立體介面圖像之認知性調查，2005年設計與文化學術研討會論文集，華梵大學，民國94年4月29日，p.1-219~1-228。
16. 葉政鑫、張悟非. (2002). 對應原則在人機互動設計之運用研究，2002中華民國設計學會學術研究成果研討會，p.155-160。
17. 黃崇彬. (1998). 日本感性工學發展近況與其在遠隔控制介面設計上應用的可能性，中日設計教育研討會論文集，雲林科技大學，p.17-25。
18. 黃俊然、陳立杰. (2002). PDA平台上產品展示網頁之頁面配置研究-以數位像機產品評比表為例，2002中華民國設計學會學術研究成果研討會，p.435-439。
19. 張悟非、洪偉肯. (1999). 視覺化概念發展在人機互動介面原型設計的探討，1999中日設計教育研討會論文集，p.37-46。
20. 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)，銘傳大學跨世紀學術研討會設計組論文集。銘傳大學，民國88年3月13日，p.99-10 9。
21. 陳建雄、簡佑宏. (2004). 視錯覺圖形對視覺認知系統與視覺引導行動控制系統之影響研究，中國技術學院學報，第二十六期，p.245-252。
22. 陳建雄、邱柏清、蔡佳穎. (2004). 使用者後設認知策略在互動介面愉悅性設計之研究(II)，九十二年度國科會工業工程與管理學門專題研究計劃成果發表會論文集(光碟版)，雲林科技大學，民國93年12月4日，p.1-15。(NSC 92-2213-E-011-046)
23. 劉明強. (2002). 軟硬體介面互動性探討-以行動電話為例，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文。
24. 謝毅彬. (1993). 電腦應用軟體使用者操作介面之操作模式設計，工業設計雜誌，VOL.83，第二十二卷，第四期，p.194-200。
25. 許鳳火. (1998). 使用者對不同相機產品的操作介面比較研究，中日設計教育研討會論文集，雲林科技大學，p.91-100。
26. 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。
27. Dunmore, T. & Brook, M. (2004). 2004流行新趨勢，Stuff期刊，02，p.46-55。
28. TSF. (2003). 3G生活立即GO！，@數位時尚，07，p.115-117。
29. Darley, J. M., Glucksberg, S., & Kinchla, R. A. (1995). Psychology (心理學概論)，楊語芸譯，台北：桂冠。
30. Bruun, S. & Wallen, M. (2001). Boken om nokia (溝通的夢想家)，陸劍豪譯，台北：城邦文化。
31. 韓叢耀. (2005). 圖像傳播學(Image communication)，台北：威仕曼文化。

英文文獻
1. Baumann, K. & Thomas, B. (2000). User interface design for electronic appliances, London: Taylor & Francis, p.6-8.
2. Buchanan, G., Farrant, S., Jones, M., Thimbleby, H., Marsden, G., & Pazzani, M. (2001). Improving mobile internet usability, International World Wide Web Conference, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, April, p.673-680.
3. Byrne, M. D. (1993). Using Icons to Find Documents: Simplicity is Critical, INTERCHI 93. Amsterdam, April, p.24-29.
4. Chen, C.-H., Chen, Y.-T., & Chiu, B.-C. (2002). Designing Human-PDA Interaction with Human Factors Considerations - A Case Study on Mobile E-Book Viewing Strategy, Proceedings of the Fourth Asia-Pacific Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Systems (APIEMS '2002), December 18-20, Grand Hotel, Taipei, Taiwan, p.1116-1119. (in CD-ROM form)
5. Chen, C.-H., Wu, F.-G., Rau, P.-L. P., and Hung, Y.-. (2004). Preferences of young children regarding interface layouts in child community web sites, Interacting with Computers, Volume 16, Issue 2 , April, p 311-330.
6. Chen, C.-H. (1999). Using Color to Facilitate the Internationalization and Localization of User Interfaces. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Internationalization of Products & Systems. May 21-22, Rochester Riverside Convention Center, Rochester, New York, USA, p.47-57. (ISBN 0-9656691-2-2)
7. Fowler, S. L. and Stanwick, V. R. (1995). The GUI Style Guide, Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
8. Furnas, G. W. (1991). New graphical reasoning models for understanding graphical interface, in Robertson, S. P., Olson, G. M. and Olson, J. S. (eds). Reaching Through Technology. CHI ’91 Conference Proceedings, ACM Press, New York, p.71-80.
9. Guindon, R. (1990). Designing the design process: ex-ploiting opportunistic thoughts. Human-Computer Interaction, 5(2&3), p.305-344.
10. Hartson, H. R. and Hix, D. (1989). Toward empirically derived methodologies and tools for human-computer interface development. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 31, p. 477-494.
11. Hansen, W. J. (1971). User engineering principles for interactive systems, AFIPS conference proceedings, V39. Fall Joint Computer Conference AFIPS press, Monvale, N.J.
12. Wendy, C. Newstetter. (2000). Interaction styles, http: // www -static.cc. gatech.edu/classes/AY2000/cs4750_fall/slides/interaction_styles/interaction_styles.
13. Kim, J. H. and Lee, K. P. (2005). Evaluating mobile content: Cultural difference and mobile phone interface design: Icon recognition according to level of abstraction, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 111, .New York, July, p.307 -310.
14. Kangas, E. and Kinnunen, T. (2005). Designing for the mobile device: experiences, challenges, and methods. Applying user-centered design to mobile application development, Communications of the ACM, 48(7). New York, July, p.55 -59.
15. Lee, W.-Y. & Chen, C.-H. (2001). A Study on the Relationship between the Structure of Link and the Form of Button in a User-Centered Search System. Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Advanced Industrial Design. December 9, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. p.39-46.
16. Newman, W. M. and Lamming, M. G. (1995). Interactive system design, UK: Addison-Wesley, p.300-301.
17. Nielsen, J, and Mack, R. L. (1994). Usability inspection methods, New York: John Wiley & sons.
18. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering, Boston, MA: Academic Press.
19. Nielsen, J. (2001). Ten Usability heuristics. www.useit.com/papers/Heuris-
tic.
20. Norman, D. A. (1983). Some Observations on Mental Models. In Gentner, D. and A. L. Stevens (eds.), Mental Models, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbuam, p.7-9.
21. Norman, D. A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books。
22. Norman, D. A. (1993). Things That Make Us Smart, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, p.78-79.
23. Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer :Why good products can fail, the personal computer is so complex, and information appliances are the solution, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
24. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things, New York: Basic Books.
25. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., and Sharp, H. (2002), Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & sons.
26. Shneiderman, B. (1987), Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley (2nd ed., 1992).
27. The User Interface Design Process, http://cet.ssu.portsmouth.oh.us/~
jgallaher/download/etec481/Week5Lecture.pdf
28. Tullis, T. S. (1988). Screen Design, In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
29. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K, and Ruuska, S. (2000), Designing mobile phones and communicators for consumers’ needs at Nokia. In E. Bergman(ed.) Information Appliances and Beyond. Sanfrancisco: Morgan Kaufmann, p.169-204.
30. Winograd, T. (1997), From computing machinery to interaction design. In P. Denning and R. Metcalfe (eds.) Beyond Calculation: the Next Fifty Years of Computing. Amsterdam: Springer-Verlag, p149-162.
31. Westendorp, P., Jansen, C., & Punselie, R. (2000), Interface Design and Document Design, Amsterdam: Rodopi, p.19-20.