「適地性服務」是一種整合衛星定位、行動通訊運算、行動商務以及社群網路等跨領域技術及多元內容的應用服務，隨著智慧型行動裝置的普及以及雲端技術的進步，適地性服務已從專業性的服務深入到使用者的日常生活及社交活動中。本研究之目的乃針對行動適地性服務的使用經驗與其互動體驗設計的介面型式進行研究，目的為找出使用性與滿意度較佳的介面設計因素，並研究如何降低適地性服務因使用經驗所造成的差異。
本研究之實驗分為兩階段：(1) 第一階段：現有適地性服務應用程式使用性與介面需求調查；(2) 第二階段：模擬互動介面設計與驗證實驗，透過驗證實驗了解不同使用經驗對於不同適地性服務互動介面的使用性與滿意度。驗證實驗採用2(使用經驗高低)x3(三種選單介面型式)的雙因子實驗方式進行。
「使用經驗」之變項共有二層級：（a）開車經驗低者：無開車經驗者與幾乎沒有開車經驗者；（b）開車經驗高者：平均每個月至少開車一次以上且行車時數超過2小時以上的使用者。而「選單介面型式」分為三層級：（a）頁籤式選單：主功能於畫面最下方以頁籤方式表現及切換，畫面主要區域則呈現頁籤相對應的清單內容；（b）矩陣式選單：以矩陣排列的喻示圖像選單設計型式；（c）列表式選單：以列表型式由上而下條列功能選項。透過實驗可獲得操作績效、系統使用性、介面互動滿意度與使用者綜合體驗感受之結果。
研究結果如下：(1) 現有的行動適地性服務互動設計使用性仍有改善空間；(2) 開車經驗高低對於不同介面選單型式具有明顯的使用性差異，開車經驗高者容易受過去使用車上設備的經驗而影響操作績效 (3) 採用「列表式選單」選單介面型式較能提高操作效率；(4) 不論「開車經驗高低」者皆認為「列表式選單」的使用性、滿意度與主觀體驗感受最佳；(5) 使用者的操作績效與對於介面的滿意度結果一致，顯示行動適地性服務的使用性為使用者的主要考量。

Location –based Service(LBS) is kind of application, integrating multitechnology including GPS, Mobile Computing, Mobile Commerce and Social Network. As smart mobile devices are more and more popular and cloud technology is getting great progress, LBS gets depth from professional services to the user's daily life and social activities. This study intent to investigate the style of menu type and the effect of user experience level, attempts to uncover user interface design factors to enhance interface usability and user satisfaction, and towards reducing the differences of user experience.
The experiment in this study includes two stages: (1) The investigation of menu types interface usability and user needs of current LBS APPs (2) The study of menu design and validation experiment to understand users’ task performance and analyze satisfaction feedback between different levels of user experience. The experiment was planned based on a 2 (levels of user experience) by 3 (menu types) two-way ANOVA design.
There are two levels in the independent variable of user experience: (a) Users with lower driving experience are related to never or drives below once a month. (b)Users with higher driving experience are related to drive above once a month. There are three levels in the independent variable of menu types: (a) Tab menu: Main function shows on the bottom area and POI list, referring to the main function, shows on the main area (b) Icon menu: Users can preview the main functions in icons. (c) Row menu: Main funcion listing in single row. Based on the experiment, the results regarding user task performance, system usability scale (SUS), interaction saitisfactory and user experience can be obtained.
The generated results indicated that: (1) The ineraction design of existing LBS APPs could be improved. (2) The results confirmed that the two variables, driving experience and main menu types, addressed in this study do have a significant effect to the usability. The task performance of users with higher driving experience is easy to be affected cause of using equipment in car past. (3) The row menu type can help improving operating efficiency. (4) No matter the leves of driving experience, users feel that the row menu type has the best interface usability, satisfaction, and subjective feelings. (5) User’s satisfaction and task performance are consistent, showing the usability of LBS is the main considerations for users.

1. Advanced Distributed Learning Initiate, “The SCROM Version 1.2 Overview,”http://www.adlnet.org.
2. Bandura(1986). Social Cognitive Theory
3. Bass,L. & John,B. E. (2003). Linking usability to software architecture patterns throughgeneral scenarios. The Journal of Systems and Software, 66, pp.187-197.
4. Boivie, I., Aborg, C., Persson, J., & Lofberg, M. (2003). Why usability getslost or usability in in-house software development. Interacting withComputers, 15, pp.623-639.
5. Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K.(1998). Contextual Design: Defing Customer-Centered Systems. San Francisco, CA:Morgan Kaufmann Publishers,Inc.
6. Bodker, S. (1996). Applying Activity Theory to Video Analysis: How to MakeSense of Video Data in Human-Computer Interaction. In B. Nardi (Ed.),Context & Consciousness, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp.147-174.
7. Campbell, R., Lynch,G. & Wright,P. (1989). Experience with contextual fieldresearch. CHI’89 Proceedings, MAY 1989.
8. Carroll, J. M. (1997). Human-computer interaction: psychology as a science ofdesign. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46,pp.501-522.
9. Carroll, J. M. (1993). Creating a design science of human-computer interaction.Interacting with Computers, 5(1), pp.3-12.
10. Charlton, S. G.(1988). An edpidemiological approach to the criteria gap inhuman factors engineering. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 31(3), pp.1-3.
11. Chen, G., Kotz, D., “A Survey of Context-aware Mobile Computing Research,”Dartmouth Computer Science Technical Report TR2000-381, http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/reports/abstracts/TR2000-381/.
12. Cintron, R. (1993). Wearing a pith helment at a sly angle— or , Can writing researchers do ethnography in a postmodern era﹖Written Communication,10, pp. 371-412.
13. Depaula, R.(2003). A new era in human computer interaction: the challenges oftechnology as a social proxy. Proceedings of the Latin American conferenceon Human-computer interaction, pp.219-222.
14. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C.Heath.
15. Dey, A. K., Abowd, G. D. (1999). “Toward a Better Understanding of Context and Context-awareness,” Georgia Tech GVU Technical Report, GIT-GVU-99-22.
16. Dey, A. K., Abowd, G. D. (1999). “Toward a Better Understanding of Context and Context-awareness,” Georgia Tech GVU Technical Report, GIT-GVU-99-22.
17. Folmer,E. & Bosch, J. (2004). Architecting for usability: a survey. The Journalof Systems and Software, 70, pp. 61-78.
18. Feldhusen, J. F., Houtz, J. C., & Ringenbach, S. E. (1972). The Purdue Elementary Problem-solving Inventory. Psychological Reports, 31(3), 891-901.
19. Franklin, D., Flaschbart, J. (1998). “All Gadget and No Representation Makes Jack a Dull Environment,” AAAI 1998 Spring Symposium on Intelligent Environments, Technical Report SS-98-02, 1998, pp. 155-160.
20. Fred D. Davis (1989). “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology”, MIS Quarterly.
21. Gefen, D. & Keil, M. (1998). The impact of developer responsiveness onperceptions of usefulness and ease of use: an extension of the technologyacceptance model. ACM SIGMIS Database, 29( 2), pp. 35-49.
22. Guilford, J. P. (1959). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14, 469-479, as cited in張春興（1996）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實驗，343。台北：東華
23. Holtzblatt, K. & Beyer, H. (1993). Making customer-centered design work for teams. Communications of the ACM, 36, pp.93-103.
24. Holtzblatt, K. & Beyer, H. (1995). Requirements gathering: The human factor. Communications of the ACM/Spcial issue, 38(5).
25. Hudson,T. (1980). Young children’s difficulty with “How many more than are there?” question. Doctoral dissertation. Indiana University, Dissertation Abstracts international, 41, as cited in彭聃齡、張必隱（1999）。認知心理學，347-348。台北：東華。
26. Hull, R., Neaves, P. & Bedford-Roberts, J. (1997). “Towards Situated Computing,” Proceedings of 1st International Symposium on Wearable Computers, pp. 146-153.
27. Irestig, M., Eriksson, H. & Timpka T. (2004). The Impact of participation ininformation system design: A comparison of contextual placements.Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design: Artfulintegration: interweaving media, materials and practices - Volume 1.
28. Kantner,L., Sova, D. H. & Rosenbaum, S. (2003). Alternative methods forfield usability research. ACM 21st International Conference on Computer Documentation, pp.68-72.
29. Klein, S. B. (1996). Learning: Principles and Applications (3rd Ed.) , 370. NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
30. Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges.Behavior & Information Technology, 22(1), pp. 1-116.
31. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hill
32. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Diego, CA：Acdemic Press.
33. Pascoe, J.(1998). “Adding Generic Contextual Capabilities to Wearable Computers,”Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Wearable Computers, pp.92-99.
34. Poulson, P. G., Lewis, C.H. & Richardson, S. (1996). USERfit, A Practical Handbook on User-centered Design for Assistive Technology, HUSAT Research Institute,UK.
35. Preece,J., Rogers,Y. & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction Design : BeyondHuman-ComputerIinteraction, New York, NY :John Wiley & Sons.
36. Rodden, T., Cheverst, K., Davies & K., Dix, A.(1998). ”Exploiting Context in HCI Design for Mobile Systems,” Proceedings of Workshop on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices.
37. Rosenbaum, S., Wilson, C. E., Jokela, T., Rohn, J. A., Smith, t. B. & Vredenburg, K. (2002). Usability in practice session: User experiencelifecycle- evolution and revolution. CHI’02 extended abstracts on Humanfactors in computing systems.
38. Ryan, N., Pascoe, J.& Morse, D.(1997). “Enhanced Reality Fieldwork: the Context-aware Archaeological Assistant,” Gaffney, V., van Leusen, M., Exxon, S., (eds.) Computer Applications in Archaeology.
39. Salber, D., Dey, A.K. & Abowd, G. D. (1998). "Ubiquitous Computing: Defining an HCI Research Agenda for an Emerging Interaction Paradigm,” Georgia Tech GVU Technical Report, GIT-GVU-98-01.
40. Schilit, B., Adam, N. & Want, R. (1994). “Context-aware Computing Application,” Proceedings of Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, Dec., pp. 85-90.
41. Schilit, B.& Theimer, M. (1994). “Disseminating Active Map Information to Mobile Hosts,” Proceedings of IEEE Network, vol. 8, issue 5, pp.22-32.
42. Schuler, D. & Namioka, A. (Eds.) (1993). Participatory Design: Principles andPractices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43. Smart, K.L. & Whiting, M.E. (2002). Using customer data to drivedocumentation design decisions. Journal of Business and TechnicalCommunication, 16(2), pp.115-169.
44. Spinuzzi, C. (2000).The ecologies of technologically mediated work: threeperspectives: Investigating the technology-work relationship: a critical comparison of three qualitative field methods. Proceedings of IEEEprofessional communication society international professionalcommunication conference and Proceedings of the 18th annual ACMinternational conference on Computer documentation: technology &teamwork, September 2000.
45. Summer, T. & Stolze, M. (1997). Evolution not revolution: Participatorydesign in the toolbelt Era. In M. Kyng and L. Mathiassen (Eds.), Computersand Design in Context. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp.1-26.
46. Ward, A., Jones, A. & Hopper, A. (1997). “A New Location Technique for the Active Office,” Proceedings of IEEE Personal Communications, vol. 4, issue 5, pp. 42-47.
47. Wixon,D. R., Ramey, J., Holtzblatt, K., Beyer, H.., Hackos, J., Rosenbaum, S.,Page,C. ,Laakso S. A & Laakso,K. P. (2002). Usability in practice: Field methodsevolution and revolution. CHI '02 extended abstracts on Human factors incomputing systems.
48. Winograd,T. (1997). From computing machinery to interaction design. In P.Denning & R. Metcalfe (eds.), Beyond Calculation: the Next Fifty Years ofComputing. Stringer-Verlag: Amsterdam,Netherlands, pp.149-162.
49. Wixon, D. & Ramey, J. (1996). Field oriented design techniques: Case studiesand organizing dimensions. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 28(3), pp.21-26.
50. Wixon, D., Holtzblatt, K. & Knox, S. (1990). Contextual design: An emergentview of system design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Humanfactors in computing systems: Empowering people, ACM Press,pp.329-336.
51. 柯建志, 2005, 情境設計與使用者中心設計於發展互動系統之比較性研究,交大
52. 賴昇鴻, 2009, 探討行動適地性服務之干擾效果對使用者接受度之影響, 雲科
53. 韓世翔, 2004, 考量環境智慧之適性化行動學習平台, 中原