觸控式螢幕介面的使用，在日常生活中的各種電子產品的應用已非常普遍，且已廣為大眾所接受。最近這幾年流行熱門的智慧型手機（Smart phone），觸控式螢幕介面更是不可或缺的必備規格功能之一。
因其便利操作的直覺式觸控、互動資訊畫面的呈現、圖形化介面隱喻的提示、外觀視覺的質感與美感、高效率人性化的簡易操作，大為提升愈來愈複雜電子科技產品使用性的滿意度。
本研究目的為針對在未來生活中普及率高度成長的智慧型手機產品，以使用者對觸控式螢幕的操作觀點，探討對於行動通訊分類型式的介面架構之各項操作模式。依據相關使用性之介面設計文獻，從實際任務操作與理論相互驗證的方式進行研究。
本研究採雙因子實驗設計，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)，受測者需針對一般智慧型手機行動通訊產品常用之功能部份進行實驗操作任務，之後要求受測者填寫系統使用性尺度(System Usability Scale, SUS)量表與使用者滿意度量表(Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction, QUIS)，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智慧型手機行動通訊分類介面設計之參考依據。研究結果說明如下：
1. 三組行動通訊介面分類型式架構在操作任務時間績效上之分析
(1) 介面B可呈現完整的資訊是較佳的分類介面設計，也讓使用者更直覺的操作。
(2) 3D介面設計與操作讓使用者有新的體驗，但也產生更多錯誤。
(3) 圖像式的設計讓高經驗使用族群的操作更直覺，而文字較適合低經驗使用族群。
(4) 介面的愉悅性有助於提升使用者對於產品的信賴感與喜好度。
(5) 簡化階層有助於使用者搜尋功能選單。
2. 使用者滿意度QUIS 評量表分析：
(1) 介面的整體反應，以分類介面 B之績效表現最佳，因在操作時清楚呈現分類功能選項，在整體的反應比其他兩分類介面設計來的佳。
(2) 操作時的學習程度，介面架構C 之績效表現最差，因其操作流程與步驟不容易使用及學習。

The use of touch sensitive screen user interface is very popular in the modern electronic products and has been widely accepted by consumers. During recent years, touch sensitive screen user interface has become a required attribute to most fashion smart phones.
Because of ease of operation, direct sense of touch, interactive information image, graphic and icons usage hints, aesthetic feeling, and high efficiency humanized operation, the touch sensitive screen user interface has improved users’ satisfaction towards many complex electronic products.
The purpose of this study is to analyze the structure of smart phone user interface based on touch sensitive screen interaction. For every operation mode of categorization style of mobile communication user interface, the relationship between user interaction stereotype and touch sensitive screen user interface design was analyzed from the usability viewpoint. This research study was performed based on the actual operation and theory according to the related user interface design literature.
This research study adopts two factors factorial design, i.e., 2 (higher and lower use experience) x 3 (three different categorization styles of mobile communication user interface). Participants were required to conduct interaction tasks that were common to most of the mobile communication of smart phone. Their task time was recorded for further analysis. In addition, after the experiment, participants were asked to fill out the questionnaires of System Usability Scale (SUS) and Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction (QUIS). The findings were further analyzed by SPSS. It is also hoped that the research results can be good references for designing of categorization styles of mobile communication user interface in the future. The result of study is explained as follows:
1. The analysis of task time among the three categorization styles of mobile communication user interface.
(1) The interface with structure B is better categorization styles of user interface design because it can show complete information and make users operate it by intuition too.
(2) Design and operation of 3D interface make users have new use experience, but make more mistakes either.
(3) The type of picture design is good use for characters of high experience, and text design is suitable for characters of low experience.
(4) The joyful user interface will raise users’ sense of trust and taste degree in products.
(5) The use of simple hierarchy can help users search functional task.
2. The followings are the analysis of user’s satisfaction based on the QUIS comments:
(1) The user interface of structure B has the best task performance in the feedback of user interface. It is clear to show all functional terms of categorization.
(2) The user interface of structure C has the worst task performance in learning, because it is hard to operate and understand its procedures and steps.

1.江翹竹(2006) ，「利用物件化的觀念繪製3G手機介面螢幕流程圖」，大同大學工業設計研究所碩士，碩士論文。
2.何宜佳(2001)，「智慧型手機發展趨勢之研究」，國立交通大學科技管理所碩士，碩士論文。
3.吳青穗(2004)，「數位學習環境下個人知識管理能力之研究— 以電子佈告欄環境為例」，國立中正大學教育學研究所，碩士論文。
4.李仁方 (1997) 。知識的內涵。台北：才訊出版社。
5.周龍鴻(2002)，「智慧型知識管理系統建構流程-以半導體產業為例」，國立成功大學管理學院EMBA在職碩士專班，碩士論文。
6.林澄貴(2001)，「知識管理、工程專業人員核心能力與工作績效關係之研究--以中鋼公司為例」，國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
7.柏德威(2007)，「人機介面未來發展趨勢」，拓墣產業研究所焦點報告
8.郭彥谷，(2001)，PDA介面資訊傳達與工作效能的關係，國立交通大學傳播研究所碩士論文。
9.郭進隆譯（1994），Peter M. Senge 著，「第五項修練：學習型組織的藝術與實務」，台北：天下。
10.陳坤淼（2000），電腦多媒體之使用者介面設計探討，高速計算世界，1(8)， 36-45
11.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。
12.陳美玉(2002)，教師個人知識管理與專業發展。台北：學富文化
13.陳淑惠(2009) ，「2009年智慧型手機發展趨勢」，Digi-Time工商產業分析分析報告。
14.傅清富(2001) ，「知識管理能力對新產品開發績效之影響」，國立中山大學企業管理學系，碩士論文。
15.黃顯閔(2003)，「新產品功能需求分析-智慧型手機之探討」，淡江大學管理科學研究所碩士，碩士論文。
16.楊深坑1988）。理論、詮釋與實踐。台北：師大書苑。
17.楊舜仁(1996)，知識管理行動化，數位時代64，P56-60。
18.廖偉伶(2003)，「知識管理在服務創新之應用」，國立成功大學工業管理科學研究所，碩士論文。
19.劉京偉譯（2000）。知識管理的第一本書，Arthur Andersen Business Consulting著。台北：商周
20.蔡佩珊(2006)，「智慧型手機平台競合策略與發展藍圖」，臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士，碩士論文。
21.蔡劼明(2005)，「智慧型手機圖像辨識率與滿意度之評估研究」，國立臺北科技大學創新設計研究所碩士，碩士論文。
22.顏誌廷(2005)，「台灣智慧型手機產業關鍵成功因素之研究」，長榮大學經營管理研究所碩士，碩士論文。
23.蘇昱霖(2007)，「2007年智慧型手機市場與廠商發展趨勢」，拓墣產業研究所焦點報告。
24.Abbott, L. (1995). Quality and competition. New York: Columbia University Press.
25.Alben, L. (1995). Quality of Experience: Defining the Criteria for Effective Interaction Design, interactions 3.3 May-June, p11.
26.Beijaard, D., Verloop, N. & Vermunt, J d. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal perspective. “Teaching and Teacher Education”, 16(1), 749-764.
27.Bill Moggridge (2008). DESIGNING INTERACTIONS. My House Publishing press.
28.Gadamer, H. G. (1982). “Reason in the Age of Science” (F. G. Lawrence, Trans.). London: The MIT Press.
29.Globe & Laugero (1999). “Knowledge Management and Competition in the Consulting Industry.” California Management Review, Vol41, No.2, winter, pp.95-107.
30.Griffiths, M. & Tann, S. (1992). Using reflective practice to link personal and public theories. “Journal of Educational for Teaching”, 18(1), 69-84.
31.Hanley, S. & C. Dawson (2000), “A framework for delivering value with knowledge management: The AMS knowledge centers.” Information Strategy; Vol. 16, Summer, pp.27-36.
32.Hanson, (2001) .Information design: Emergence of a new profession. In R. Jacobson (Eds.), Information design, pp.15-33, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
33.Hiroshi Ishii. Designing Interaction. My House Publishing Press
34.Jerome S. Bruner (1996). The Culture of Education. New York: Columbia University Press
35.Joy, A. & Sherry, J. F. (2003). Speaking of art as embodied imagination: A multisensory approach to understanding aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), pp.259-284
36.Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., & Rigdon E. (2001). Experiential value: Conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment. Journal of Retailing, 77, pp.39-56
37.Mohageg, Annette. , (2008). Aesthetic interaction: a pragmatist's aesthetics of interactive systems. Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp.269-276.
38.Norman, D. A. & Draper, S. W. (eds.). (1986). User Centered System Design:New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.
39.Nathan Shedroff (2002). Experience Design, New Riders
40.Nielsen, J. (1993). Things. New York: Basic Books。. Usability Engineering. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
41.Nonaka, I.,(1998) “The Concept of Ba: Building a foudation of knowledge Creation,” California Management Review, Vol.40.
42.Nonaka I. and H. Takeuchi, (1995)“The Knowledge-Creating Company,” Oxford Press.
43.Nonaka, I., P. Reinmoeller and D. Senoo,(2000) “Management Focus the Art of Knowledge: Systems to Capitalize on Market Knowledge”, European Management Journal, Vol. 16 No.6.
44.Norman, D. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books。
45.Norman, D. A. (2000). The Psychology of Everyday Things (設計心理學)，卓耀譯，台北：遠流出版。
46.Norman, D. A. (2003). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday
47.O’Dell, C. and C. J. Grayson, Jr., (1998)“If Only We Knew What We Know: the Transfer of Internal Knowledge and Best Practice,” New York: Free Press.
48.Pine II, B. J., Gilmore, J. H. (1998). “Welcome to the Experience Economy”, Harvard Business Review, July-August, p.97.
49.Pine II, B. J., Gilmore J. H., (1999). The Experience Economy: Work Is Theatre & Every Business a Stage: Goods ＆services are no longer enough, USA
50.Polanyi, M.,(1967) “The Tacit Dimension,” New York: M. E. Sharp Inc.
51.Sallis, E. & Jones, G. (2002). “Knowledge management in education: Enhancing learning & education”. London: Kogan Page.
52.Sarvary, M. (1999) “Knowledge Management and Competition in the Consulting Industry.” California Management Review, Vol41, No.2, winter, pp.95-107.
53.Schmitt, B. H. (1999). Experiential marketing: How to get customers to sense, feel, think, act, and relate to your company and brand. New York: The Free Press.
54.Seybold, P. (1998). Customers.com. New York: Times Business
55.Shedroff, N. (1999). Information interaction design: A unified field theory of design. In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Information design. p267-292.