全球正迎接高齡化浪潮，台灣的高齡人口也以極快的速度成長，高齡照護與健康議題亟需各界重視。懷舊活動是職能治療師、社工師經常用於刺激長輩回憶的方式，研究也顯示生命回顧能幫助長者達到生命的統整，對高齡者的健康多有益處。個人照片是經常用於懷舊活動的元素，但目前並未有一套工具幫助帶領者紀錄長輩懷舊活動的過程，無法進行長期的追蹤比較，更讓珍貴的生命故事隨著長者去世而消逝。
本研究之研究目標為針對帶領者的需求，設計能在個別照片懷舊活動中使用的應用程式，幫助紀錄長輩述說的故事。透過文獻探討與訪談，了解高齡化趨勢、生命回顧、故事重述、介面設計及目前懷舊活動進行現況。之後進行前導實驗，歸納現有照片分享App之記錄方式，選擇日記形式、標籤形式及手寫形式之App作為實驗樣本，結果發現直接記錄於照片上，其心智負荷、生理負荷程度較低，對於理解、記憶故事內容皆有幫助。以標籤形式進行照片記錄，系統抓取紀錄文字在技術上較為可行，惟加入標籤的過程需要較多操作，因此需透過進一步實驗，研究負荷較低、使用性高之個別懷舊活動照片標註介面之設計規範。
於模擬介面實驗階段，收集現有照片標註App之介面設計與互動並設計實驗，實驗採2（標註面板與照片之關係）x3（標籤輸入面板圖像化）雙因子實驗設計，探討變數對使用性與體驗感受造成的影響，受測者實際使用模擬介面標註照片，並進行NASA-TLX量表、SUS使用性量表、紀錄過程與紀錄感受問卷填寫及訪談。研究結果如下：
(1) 圖像化介面的設計，在紀錄過程及觀看紀錄內容的階段，皆較能降低受測者之主觀負荷，且能幫助使用者理解、回想故事內容及顯示故事記錄的重點。
(2) 「標註面板懸浮於照片之上」的介面呈現，易造成視覺干擾導致整體負荷程度較高且使用性較低。「標註面板部分覆蓋照片」的呈現方式，照片內容不會與標註面板重疊、且能觀看到標註目標，使標註過程達到較好的體驗、負荷程度較低，是較合適的呈現方式。
(3) 整體模擬介面設計，帶給受測者主觀負荷程度感受略低於平均值，而使用性介於「一般」與「良好」的標準之間；在紀錄過程、紀錄內容及整體滿意度部分得分高於平均值，顯示模擬介面之設計能滿足紀錄及觀看照片故事的需求，但後續仍須針對在觀察及訪談中發現的使用性問題進行設計修正，以達到更好的使用性水準。

With the global trends in population ageing, Taiwan is also facing a surging elderly population, making senior health care issues in urgent need of public attention. Reminiscing activity is one of the terms occupational therapists and social workers used to stimulate the memory and activate the brain of the elderly. Research shows that life review could help the elderly to reach life integration and harmony, as well as to improve their self confidence, cognitive ability and life satisfaction, therefore is considered to be very beneficial for their health. Personal photography is one of the most common elements used in reminiscing sessions. However, no current tool is able to help document its process and conduct long-term tracking studies, causing valuable life stories to pass away with the elderly.
The purpose of this paper was to develop an application that meets the needs of session conductors during individual photography reminiscing activities, which can document the stories told by the elderly. Literature review and interviews were first conducted to understand the trends of population ageing, story retelling, interface design and the current status of reminiscing activities. They were followed by a leading experiment which collected and classified the existing ducumenting methods of photography sharing applications. Three application forms were chosen as experiment sample, including dairy, tagging, and handwriting. The experiment revealed that recording directly on the photo would cause lower physical and mental workload, and be helpful in both understanding and memorizing the content of stories. It was relatively technically feasible to document the detail by tagging, and grab the information tagged in photos by the system. However, adding tags would cause complicated operational procedures, a further experiment was therefore carried out to investigate a low-research-workload and high-usability design specifications of the tag interface for individual photography reminiscing activities.
Under the experimental stage of simulation interfaces, the interface design and interaction data of the existing photo tagging application were collected, and six interfaces were created based on the needs of session conductors. The experiment investigated the influences of two variables, including: (1) the relationship between tag interface and photos; (2) the visualization of tag-input panel, to the usability and using experience of the applications used in individual photography reminiscing activities. Experimental subjects were asked to use the simulation interfaces to tag photos, complete The NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) and the system usability scale (SUS), and to fill out a survey that records the process and their feelings. The following results were discovered:
(1) At the stage of documenting and reviewing information, in comparison with non-visualized interface designs, visualized interface designs could not only lower the subjective workload, but help the subjects to comprehend and recall the content of their stories, and could highlight the key point of these stories.
(2) The ”floating tag panel over the photos” layout tend to cause visual disturbances, contributing to high workload and low usability. On the contrary, the “partial covered panel on the photos” layout would not overlap the photos, making the tagged subjects clear to be seen, thus increased a better tagging experience. In addition, it created a better experience in both documenting and reviewing information, received high satisfaction and willingness of using, and showed that the design of the entire interface and function have met the needs of documenting and reviewing the stories in the photos.
(3) The study showed that the entire design of simulation interface has brought subjective workload slightly lower than average statistics, its usability was in-between “normal” and “good” standard, therefore showed that the design of the simulation interface has met the needs of documenting and reviewing the stories in the photos. Nonetheless, to reach a better usability level, design revision against the usability problems found through the observation and interviews is still needed.

1. Alzheimer’s Disease Internationalm (2015). World Alzheimer Report 2015: The Global Impact of Dementia. Retrieved from http://www.alz.co.uk/research/world-report-2015
2. Atchley, R. (1989). A continuity theory of normal aging. The Gerontologist, 29, 137-144
3. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. The psychology of learning and motivation, 2, 89-195.
4. Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4(11), 417-423.
5. Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: looking back and looking forward.Nature reviews neuroscience, 4(10), 829-839.
6. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. The psychology of learning and motivation, 8, 47-89.
7. Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The model of selective optimization with compensation.Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences, 1, 1-34.
8. Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of usability studies, 4(3), 114-123.
9. Ber kowitz, J. P., &Casali, S. P. (1990). Influence of age on the ability to hear telephone ringers of different spectral content. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting ,34 (2), p.132-136. SAGE Publications.
10. Birren, J. E., & Cochran, K. N. (2001). Telling the stories of life through guided autobiography groups. Taylor & Francis US.
11. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194), 4-7.
12. Budiu, R., & Nielsen, J. (2011). Usability of iPad Apps and websites. Retrieved from http://www.nngroup.com/reports/ipad-App-and-website-usability/
13. Butler, R. N. (1980). Ageism: A foreword. Journal of Social Issues, 36(2), 8-11.
14. Butler, R.N. (1963). The life review: An interpretation of reminiscence in the aged. Psychiatry, 26, 65-70.
15. Carlsen, M. B. (1991). Creative aging: A meaning-making perspective. WW Norton & Co.
16. Chapanis, A., (1976). Engineering Psychology. In M.D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
17. Charness, N., Holley, P., Feddon, J. & Jastrzembski, T. (2004). Light pen use and practice minimize age and hand performance differences in pointing tasks. Human Factors, 46(3), 373-384.
18. Clayton, V. (1975). Erickson’s theory of human development as it Applies to the aged. Human Development, 18, 119-128.
19. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., (1989) User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Model. Management Science, vol.35(8), 982-1002.
20. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2013). World Population Ageing: 1950-2050. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldageing19502050/
21. Dimino, J., Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Blake, G. (1990). Story grammar: An Approach for promoting at-risk secondary students' comprehension of literature.The Elementary School Journal, 19-32.
22. Erikson, E. H. (1993). Childhood and society. WW Norton & Company.
23. Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (1983). The social construction of helping relationships. New directions in helping, 1, 143-163.
24. Gowans, G., Campbell, J., Alm, N., Dye, R., Astell, A., & Ellis, M. (2004, April). Designing a multimedia conversation aid for reminiscence therapy in dementia care environments. In CHI'04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 825-836). ACM.
25. Haber, D. (1986). Incorporation of nursing home field projects into the undergraduate curriculum. The Journal of Long Term Care Administration, 14(2), 23-25.
26. Haber, D. (2006). Life review: Implementation, theory, research, and therapy.The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 63(2), 153-171.
27. Haight, B. (1995). Reminiscing: The state of the art as a basis for practice. In J. Hendricks. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.
28. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in psychology,52, 139-183.
29. ISO-International Organization for Standardization (1988) Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) -- Part 11: Guidance on usability (ISO/IEC 9241-11 ).
30. Kartman, L. (1991). Life review: One aspect of making meaningful music for the elderly. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 15, 45-52.
31. Kausler, D. H. (1994). Learning and memory in normal aging . San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
32. Kunz, J. A., & Soltys, F. G. (2007). Transformational reminiscence: Life story work. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
33. L.M. (1988). Retelling stories as a diagnostic tool. In S.M. Glazer, L.W. Searfoss, & L.M. Gentil. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
34. Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax.Language in the inner city, 354, 96.
35. Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1997). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Journal of Narrative & Life History, Vol 7(1-4), 3-38.
36. McLaughlin, A.C., Rogers, W.A. & Fisk A.D. (2009). Using Direct and Indirect Input Devices: Attention Demands and Age-Related Differences. AMC Trans Comput Hum Interact, 16(1),1-15.
37. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review, 63(2), 81.
38. Morrow, L.M. (1984). Effects of story retelling on young children’s comprehension and sense of story structure. In J.A. Niles & L.A. Harris. Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
39. Morrow, L.M. (1985). Retelling stories: A strategy for improving young children’s comprehension, concept of story structure, and oral language complexity. Elementary School Journal, 85(5), 647–661.
40. Morrow, L.M. (1986). Effects of structural guidance in story retelling on children’s dictation of original stories. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18(2), 135–152.
41. Morrow, L.M. (1989). Using story retelling to develop comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
42. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
43. Nomura, N. (2009). Individual reminiscence therapy improves self-esteem for Japanese community-dwelling older adults. Shinrigaku kenkyu: The Japanese journal of psychology, 80(1), 42-47.
44. Norman, D. A. (1983), Some Observations on Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbuam.
45. Norman, D. A., & Nielsen, J. (2010). Gestural interfaces: a step backward in usability. interactions, 17(5), 46-49.
46. Norman, D. A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Currency.
47. Rama, M. D., de Ridder, H. & Bouma, H. (2001).Technology generation and Age in using layered user interfaces, Usability Evaluation of Numeric Entry Tasks on Keypad Type and Age. Gerontechnology, 1(1), 25-40.
48. Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1997). Successful aging. The gerontologist, 37(4), 433-440.
49. Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. New York, NY: Academic Press.
50. Sahana, M. (2014). Reminiscence therapy: An Overview. Middle East Journal of Age and Ageing, 6(5), 18-22.
51. Sherman, E. (1991). Reminiscentia: Cherished objects as memorabilia in late-life reminiscence. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 33(2), 89-100.
52. Shneiderman, B., & Ben, S. (2003). Designing the user interface. Pearson Education: India.
53. Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2010). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction (5th Ed), Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publ. Co.
54. Sok, S. R. (2015). Effects of individual reminiscence therapy for older women living alone. International nursing review 62(4), 517-524.
55. Subramaniam, P., Woods, B., & Whitaker, C. (2014). Life review and life story books for people with mild to moderate dementia: a randomised controlled trial. Aging & mental health, 18(3), 363-375.
56. Szu Yang Cho. (2015). BIT’s annual global health conference-2015.Using ICT to facilitate Reminiscence therapy for dementia elderly people: the case study of Memoir Monopoly. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the BIT Congress Inc., Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
57. Thorndyke, P. V. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.
58. Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory 1. Organization of Memory. London: Academic, 381(e402), 4.
59. United Nations(1991/12/16).United Nations Principles for Older People. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/46/a46r091.html
60. United Nations(1998/10/01). A 'Society for all ages' Honors Traditional Leadership Role of Elders, Secretary-General Says, Opening International Year of Older Persons. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/press/en/1998/19981001.sgsm6728.html
61. Webster, J. D., & Haight, B. K. (2002). Critical advances in reminiscence work: From theory to Application. Springer Publishing Company.
62. Wickens, C. D. (1991). Processing resources and attention. Multiple-task performance, 3-34.
63. World Health Organization (2002). Active ageing: a policy framework. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/active_ageing/en/
64. Zimiles, H., & Kuhns, M. (1976). A developmental study in the retention of narrative material. Final report. New York, NY: Bank Street College of Education.
65. 王國安、蔡綿綜、陳侑宗、張安利、石皓凱、謝育霖、鄭逸君(2012)。影像數位典藏在懷舊治療的加值應用實務： 以人生回憶錄資訊系統之建構為例。101年度社會福利實務與學術研討會張貼之論文，弘光科技大學銀髮族全人健康照護管理中心。
66. 王瓊珠(2004)。故事結構與分享閱讀。台北：心理。
67. 吳曉琪(2007)。故事結構教學策略對國小二年級學童寫作表現與寫作動機之影響（碩士論文）。取自屏東科技大學http://140.127.82.166/handle/987654321/3558。
68. 李俐慧(2013)。互動設計應用於老人懷舊治療之研究（碩士論文）。取自台灣碩博士論文加值系統http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/89690542967920008068
69. 李傳房、郭辰嘉(1999)。台灣不同年齡層的手部機能研究。科技學刊人文社會類，2，89-96。
70. 卓耀宗(譯)(2007)。 設計&日常生活：如何選擇好的日常生活用品（原作者：Norman, D.A）。台北市：遠流。(原作出版年：2002)
71. 周玉淳、藍育慧、趙淑員(2008)。運用個別懷舊治療減緩一位失智長者焦慮之護理經驗。護理雜誌，55(4)，105-110。
72. 社團法人資訊工業策進會(2015年7月20日)。係”驚”吔！全臺行動族群半年內激增170萬人 熟齡族躍升主力族群 hTC擊敗Samsung奪回手機愛牌美名 現逾1,600萬人每天滑滑滑！！！。取自http://www.iii.org.tw/Service/3_1_1_c.aspx?id=1566
73. 范光中、許永河(2010)。台灣人口高齡化的社會衝擊。台灣老誌，5，149-168。
74. 徐慧娟、張明正。2004。臺灣老人成功老化與活躍老化現況：多層次分析。臺灣社會福利學刊3(2)，1-36。
75. 國家發展委員會(103)。中華民國人口推計（103年至150年）。取自：https://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=84223C65B6F94D72
76. 張辰楷（2011）。智慧型手機做為輔具與復健器材之應用與前景。台灣老年論壇，12，1-12。
77. 張俊喜、林靜宜、許佩蓉(2007) 。懷舊治療對護理之家老年住民憂鬱狀況之影響。台灣老人保健學刊，3(1)，65-82。
78. 張紹勳(2001)。研究方法。台中：滄海書局。
79. 張鐘汝、范明林 (1997)。老年社會心理，台灣：水牛出版社。
80. 許勝雄、吳水丕、彭游 (2011)。人因工程（第四版），台北：滄海書局。
81. 陳佩芸、謝玉琴、陳光慧、李芸玫、羅琦(2009)。運用回憶療法協助老年人壓力調適之個案研究。台灣心理諮詢季刊，1(3)，1-10。
82. 陳建志 (1999)。為高齡者設計的因子與評估方法之探討。明志技術學院學報，31，83-91。
83. 陳建雄（譯）(2009)。互動設計: 跨越人－電腦互動（原作者：Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H.。台北：全華圖書。 （原著出版年：2006）
84. 陳建雄(2012)。智慧聯網電視的互動設計趨勢。電工通訊季刊，9。
85. 游恆山（譯）(2001)。發展心理學（原作者：Singleman, C.K. & Shaffer, D.R.）。台北市：五南圖書出版股份有點公司。（原著出版年：2001）