隨著行動裝置的盛行，對生活上的影響無遠佛屆，手機應用程式也從以往的即時通訊、娛樂應用程式發展到生活服務成面，諸如：餐廳訂位、Airbnb民宿訂房、Uber叫車服務、Wego國際機票與飯店比價訂位服務軟體，且在國際間皆引起熱潮，反觀國內使用者利用國內機票訂位應用軟體黏著度相對低。
本研究以國內航空公司機票訂位應用程式為例，進行介面互動之研究。研究包含兩部份實驗：前導性實驗：(1) 現有航空公司訂票系統應用程式介面調查，了解目前機票訂位APP之優缺點，包含選單呈現與操作流程的直覺與便利性、介面互動滿意度、系統使用性，並透過受測者訪談了解使用者需求與建議；(2) 驗證實驗：依據文獻探討及前導性實驗結果進行模擬樣本設計，並進行任務操作與問卷填寫驗證實驗。
驗證實驗採3 (選單模式) x 2 (資訊架構) 雙因子實驗方式進行，選單模式變項共三層級：(1) 下拉式方型選單：每個單選項皆採用下拉式隱藏選單模式操作；(2)單選項長型選單：階層式選單，每個選單頁面為單選項的清單列表與單選項點選；(3)雙選項寬長型選單：階層式選單，每個選單頁面為雙選項的清單列表與雙選項點選。資訊架構變項共兩層級：(1) 未整合模式：將主要功能選項按鍵單獨置放於頁面下方，首頁顯示於頁面右上方，查詢建、確認鍵、收藏鍵依功能頁面需求顯示於左上方；(2) 整合模式：整合主要功能選項按鍵、首頁、查詢鍵等，皆顯示於頁面下方。
研究結果顯示，機票訂位應用程式介面設計「選單模式」對於使用者任務操作有顯著性差異，而「資訊架構」的未整合與整合模式在任務操作也有顯著性差異。詳細研究成果如下：(1) 機票訂位APP容易受限於手機螢幕尺寸與環境，在介面設計上，畫面的資訊呈現須簡化與統整並強調主要資訊，避免過多資訊互相干擾。(2)介面操作流程須引導使用者直覺性點選，並適度反饋，讓使用者快速了解操作選項結果；(3)目前國內機位訂票模式，使用網路訂位方式比率較高，因此使用者易將過往使用網路訂位頁面操作經驗帶入，設計者創造一致性的使用性經驗，讓使用者操作APP過程遵循以往經驗順利尋找目標，不會產生挫折感與迷路現象；(4)資訊架構透過功能鍵整合與否，在實驗驗證結果，得知整合功能鍵能讓手指操作時，在畫面上游移範圍縮小，並更直覺的點選功能鍵。

Nowadays, with the booming development of mobile phone devices in our daily life, the application software (hereinafter referred to as “APP”) has transformed itself from realtime messenger and recreation software into day to day services which include restaurant reservation, Airbnb accommodation service, Uber network, Wego travel agencies and so forth. The above mentioned APP draws good attentions in the global market. However, relatively few domestic users make use of those APPs.
This study takes domestic flight booking systems for instance by studying the interactive user interface design. The research contains two parts of experiments: (1) Current status research: Study the current booking system and understand the advantages and shortcomings of it. Mainly focus on the instinct and convenience of menus and processes by studying whether the interactive interface is user-friendly and understanding the demands and suggestions of users by questionnaire. (2) Verification: Design simulated experimental prototypes according to relevant literatures and current status research. Implement the simulation and also have questionnaire answered.
The verification stage was carried out with two-way ANOVA designs, i.e., 3 menu designs x 2 information architectures. There are three levels of menu designs: (1) Dynamic dropdown list design, i.e., except for the one being used, the others are hidden. (2) Single option list design, i.e., it is a hierarchical menu. Each page contains one option list only. Users make one option one step at a time. (3) Double options list model, i.e., it is a hierarchical menu as well. Each page contains one or two option lists. Users make options by turns. There are two levles of information architectures: (1) Non-integrated model, i.e., the main function icons are shown at the bottom of the page, HOME is shown at the top-left, whereas SEARCH, ENTER, and SAVE AS FAVORITE is shown at the top-right of the page. (2) Integrated model, i.e., besides the main function icons, HOME, SEARCH, ENTER, and SAVE AS FAVORITE functions are shown together at the bottom of the page
The verification experiment revealed that each different interface construction on “menu design” makes a great deal of difference. The varieties between the integrated model and non-integrated model are obviously distinguishing. The conclusion is listed below: (1) Due to the limitation of size of phone screen, the information appeared needs to be simplified and integrated. It shows only the main information rather than too many crowded ones in one screen. (2) Operating process must guide the users instinctively and feedback on time so as to let users rapidly know what would come out by the icon just pressed. (3) In terms of current domestic flight ticket booking, a relatively large portion is made via online booking. As a result, users potentially do what they used to do with experience as they did in the past. It would be better for designer to design the APP similar or consistent to those online booking interface so as not to puzzle and confuse the users. (4) Through the verification, it is known that the integrated model can minimize the movement of fingers so a more instinctive click can be achieved.

英文文獻
1.Horn, R. E. (1999). Information design: Emergence of a new profession. In R.
Jacobson (Eds.), Information design, 15-33, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
2.Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
3.Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990). How to conduct a heuristic evaluation. Retrieved
from: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_evaluation.html
4.Norman, D. A. (1983). Some Observations on Mental Models. In Gentner, D. &
Stevens, A. L. (eds.). Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.Preece, J. (1993). A guide to usability: Human factors in computing. Wokingham, UK:
Addison-Wesley.
6.Shedroff, N. (1999). Information interaction design: A unified field theory of design.
In Jacobson, R. (Ed.), Information design. 267-292.
7.Wildbur, P. & Burke, M. (1998). Information graphics. London: Thames and Hudson.
8.Jeng, T., Lee, C. H., Chen, C., & Ma, Y. P. (2002). Interaction and social issues in a
human-centered reactive environment. Proceedings of Seventh International
Conference on CAADRIA 2002 in Asis, Malaysia, 285-292.

中文文獻
1.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，台北。
2.李青蓉、魏丕信、施郁芬、邱昭彰，(1998)，人機介面設計，台北：國立空中大學。
3.吳進北(2001)。螢幕圖示配置對使用效率影響之相關研究。東海大學工業工程學系碩士論文。台中。
4.許勝雄、彭游、吳水丕 (2009)。人因工程。滄海書局，台中。
5.葉謹睿 (2010)。互動設計概論。藝術家出版社，26-27，台北。
6.Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things設計&日常生活，卓耀宗譯，台北：遠流出版。
7.池田拓司（2013）。智慧手機App UI-UX設計鐵則，陳亦苓譯，台北：旗標出版。
8.吳泰毅（2009）。中高齡者對數位相框使用者介面按鍵功能提示與動態回饋設計之探討。國立臺灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
9.吳汶燕（2011）。社群網站功能項形態與排版型式設計之使用性探討。國立臺灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
10.彭群雅（2013）。社群網站動態消息欄介面之資訊呈現與訊息排版型式之體驗設計。國立臺灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
11.張煒旻（2010）。智慧型手機行動通訊介面分類型式之設計研究。國立臺灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
12.蔡丞恩（2016）。平板手機即時通訊介面選單設計與使用手之研究。國立臺灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
13.陳世昌（2014）。社群即時通訊應用程式使用者介面版面配置及聯絡人切換模式之設計研究。國立臺灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。

網路資料
1.蔡佳妤 (2011年8月28日)，推動APP產業發展 經部揮舞三魔棒，經濟日報，2013年10月12日，取自：http://www.wretch.cc/blog/leekming/24387998。
2.旅遊搜尋引擎Skyscanner (2016) 。台灣旅客訂機票最愛哪種介面 。民105 年6 月12 日，取自：http://www.nownews.com/n/2016/06/12/2130908
3.Hurff, S. (2014, September 9). How to design for thumbs in the Era of Huge Screens. The blog of scott hurff. Retrieved from: http://scotthurff.com/posts/how-to-design-for-thumbs-in-the-era-of-huge-screens
4.Kovalenko, D. (2015, March 24). The Big Reason Why iOS8 Sucks？Medium. Retrieved from: https://medium.com/user-experience-design-1/the-big-reason-why-ios8-sucks-73ac7925c626#.6h2noimbr