從1970年代後，二十世紀，現代化指標識別系統的建立，使得人們能夠以更有效率的方式獲得明確的指引。但隨著科技的演變，在二十一世紀，我們的城市隨著公共基礎建設日益龐大，其範圍不斷遞增，再加上多樣化的交通選擇方式，人們進出空間的方式也變得更複雜，以現有的指標識別的資訊提供量似乎已經不足以應付人們的需求，因此，導入新的技術與觀念來呈現新型態的指標識別設計，成為刻不容緩的議題。本研究主要在探討虛擬環境中有關使用者後設認知策略與尋路輔助之設計，對於使用者空間知識之建構與尋路策略影響，研究之目的有三：(1)分析調查不同型式的互動介面(2D 與3D 視覺輔助)，對於使用者在互動介面的瀏覽方式、尋路策略與後設認知知識所造成的影響。(2)調查使用者對於不同的螢幕尺寸與2D/3D 虛擬環境的知覺接觸與認知系統所產生的感官、情緒與尋路策略之差異。(3)探討不同的操作型式與螢幕資訊的呈現方式如何影響使用者之尋路過程中，其心智負荷與認知地圖的建構，及後設認知體驗之感受。
虛擬實境應用的發展已行之有年，但隨著不同的空間設計與虛擬技術的發展與進步，對應著使用者的需求也隨之改變，本研究在進行步驟上分為兩階段探討：(1)為前導性研究，主要以分析現有虛擬環境之導覽方式，以螢幕尺寸於2D跟3D導覽輔助作為實驗變項進行任務實驗，並在過程中進行觀察與事後訪談。(2)為後測實驗，主要以前測及研究文獻之結果，設計一個虛擬環境城市，進行任務實驗，探討楔形指引、操作模式與視角三者間的顯著關係與是否會互相影響。
研究結果發現：(1)客觀操作績效中，在虛擬環境中，2D楔形視覺指引的整體表現優於3D楔形視覺表現。(2)主觀滿意度中，使用者在第三人稱下的2D楔形視覺指引的評價最高，但在第一人稱視角下的3D楔形視覺指引評價最低。(3)由於在虛擬環境中，3D楔形指引會因為鏡頭透視的影響，造成使用者在操作時必須額外增加工作負荷去進行辨識，才能完成任務。(4)在不同操作模式下，受測者在第三人稱下操作人物模型動作行為時能比較容易達到較為精確的位移與能直接看到其動作回饋反應，2D楔形指引則可給予較為直覺的遠近判斷依據，而讓受測者獲得較高成就感與滿意度。

In the twentieth century, since 1970, the design of modern jdentification system has made people obtain visual guidances more efficiently and clearly. With the rapid development of technology and public infrastructure, people in the twenty-first century can easily move to many places and have a larger living space. However, the way of life becomes more complex with varied transportation. It seems that the information presented from identification system cannot fully meet people’s needs today. It is necessary to import new technology and ideas to present new types of identification system design in the current days.

The study aims to analyze users’ wayfinding behavior in a virtual environment by using visual aids design which impacts on their knowledge of space and wayfinding strategies. There are three purposes of this study: (1) Analyze the influences of different types of interfaces (2D and 3D visual aids) on user s’ behavior in surfing, wayfinding strategies and metacognition knowledge. (2) Investigate the differences of the senses, emotions and wayfinding strategies in using different sizes of screens and in a 2D/3D virtual environment. (3) Investigate how different information visualization forms affect users’ behavior in the wayfinding process through the mental workload, cognitive maps constructed, and metacognitive experience of feelings.

The application in a virtual environment has been developed for years. But within the rapid development of technology applied in virtual environment and space design, people’s needs have also changed. There are two steps of this study. The first step is the pilot survey which investigates the existing navigation ways for virtual environment and 2D/3D visual aids in different screen sizes. Users were observed during the process of the experiment and an interview was conducted when the tasks were completed. The second step is the posttest experiment based on the result of the pilot survey and references. A virtual city model was created and wayfinding tasks were designed for the study to help investigate the relationship between wedges, operation modes, and the viewing angle in the virtual environment.

The results generated in this study revealed that: (1) The user performance using the 2D wedge visual aids is better than the 3D wedge visual aids. (2) Users give the highest scores on the 2D wedge visual aids in the third person viewing mode and give the lowest scores on the 3D wedge visual aids in the first person viewing mode. (3) The 3D wedge visual aids are affected by the lens perspective in the 3D virtual environment. Therefore, users have more mental workloads in recognizing the visual aids to complete the tasks. (4) In different operation modes, it is found that people users move accurately in the third person viewing mode. And they have more sense of satisfaction and accomplishment in the 2D wedge visual aids mode which provides more intuitive judgments in distance.

英文文獻
1. Allen, G. L. (1999). Spatial abilities, cognitive maps, and wayfinding. In R. G. Golledge (Ed.), Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2. Booth, K., Fisher, B., Page, S., Ware, C., & Widen, S. (2000). Wayfinding in a virtual environment. Retrieved Mar 10, 2005, from http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~fisher/wayfinding.pdf
3. Baudisch, P. and Rosenholtz, R. (2003). Halo: A tech-nique for visualizing off-screen locations. Proc. CHI 2003, 481-488.
4. Barbara Roberson (1999), "3D on the Web", Computer Graphics World.
5. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In Jordan, P. W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B. A., McClelland, A. L. (Eds.) Usability Evaluation In Industry. London: Taylor and Francis.
6. Conroy, R. A. (2001). Wayfinding in the real and virtual world. In Spatial navigation in immersive virtual environments. Department Architecture. 23-48. London: University College London.
7. Chen, C.-H., Chen, S.-C., Huang, Y.-C., Hsiao, W.-H., Wang, S.-P., & Lu, M.-Y. (2012.12). Users' Wayfinding Behavior in a Virtual Environment of Different Screen Sizes. ICIC Express Letters. 6(12). 3001-3008.
8. Downs, R. & Stea, D. (1973). Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
9. Darken R. P. and Sibert J. L. (1993). A Toolset for Navigation in Virtual Environments. Appears in the Proceedings of ACM User Interface Software & Technology, 157-165
10. Dewsbery, V. (2005), Designing for Small Screens, AVA Publishing SA.
11. Fabricator, C., Nussbaum, M., & Rosas, R. (2002). Playability in action videogames: A qualitative design model. Human-Computer Interaction, 17(4).
12. Ferrington, G., & Loge, K. (1992). Virtual Reality: A New LearningEnvironment, The Computing Teacher, 19(7), 16-19.
13. Gluck, M. (1990). Making sense of human wayfinding: A review of cognitive and Linguistic knowledge for personal navigation with a new research direction. Myke Gluck School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York.
14. Golledge, R. G. (1999). Human wayfinding and cognitive maps. In R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Wayfinding behavior: cognitive mapping and other spatial processes, 1-45. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.) Human Mental Workload. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers, 139-183, 1988.
16. Harrel G. D. (1986), Consumer Behavior, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.
17. Johns, C. (2003). Spatial learning: cognitive mapping in abstract virtual environments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Computer graphics, virtual Reality, visualization and interaction in Africa.
18. Lohman, D. F., (1979). Spatial ability: Review and re-analysis of the correlationallLiterature. Stanford University Technical Report 8. Cited in Infield, S., (1991) An Investigation into the Relationship Between Navigation Skill and Spatial Abilities. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington.
19. Looi, C.-K., Zhang, B., Chen, W., Seow, P., Chia, G., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). 1:1 mobile inquiry learning experience for primary science students: a study of learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 269–287.
20. Lynch, K. (1960), The Image of the City, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Maniar, N., Bennett, E., Hand, S., & Allan, G. (2008). The effect of mobile phone screen size on video based learning. Journal of Software, 3(4), 51-61.
22. May, A. J., Ross, T., Bayer, S. H., & Tarkianen, M. J. (2003). Pedestrian navigation aids: information requirements and design implications. Personal & Ubiquitous Computing, 7(6), 331-338.
23. McLellan, H. (1994). Virtual Reality and Multiple Intelligence: Potential for Higher Education, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 5(2), 33-66.
24. Moffat, S. D., Hampson, E., & Hatzipantelis, M. (1998). Navigation in a “virtual” maze: Sex differences and correlation with psychometric measures of spatial ability in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 73-87.
25. Ni, T., Bowman, A. D., & Chen, J. (2006). Increased display size and resolution improve task performance in information-rich virtual environments. Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2006, 139-146. Toronto, Canada: ACM.
26. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Book.
27. Peponis, J., Zimring, C., & Choi, Y. K. (1990). Finding the building in wayfinding. Environment and Behavior, 22(5), 555-590.
28. Preece, J. (1998). A Guide to Usability Human Factors in Computing, New York: Wiley Computer Publishing.
29. Rollings, A., & Adams, E. (2003). Game design. (Prepublication galley proof). Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
30. Ruddle, R. A., Payne, S. J., Jones, D. M. (1997). Navigation Building in “Desk-Top” Virtual Environments: Experimental Investigation Using Extended Navigational Experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(2), 143-159.
31. Satalich, G. A. (1995). Navigation and Wayfinding in Virtual Reality: Finding Proper Tools and Cues to Enhance Navigation Awareness. Master dissertation, Washington University.
32. Sean Gustafson, Patrick Baudisch, Carl Gutwin and Pourang Irani. (2008). Wedge: clutter-free visualization of off-screen locations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08), 787-796.
33. Shedroff, N. (1999). Information interaction design: A unified field theory of design. In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Information design. 267-292.
34. Shneiderman, B. (1987). Designing the user interface: Strategies for the effective human-computer interaction. MA: Addison-Wesley.
35. Shneiderman, Ben, (1983). Human Engineering Management Plan for Interactive systems. IEEE Computer Society Press, Spring. M. D.
36. Steuer, J. (1995). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. In F. Biocca & M. Levy (Eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality, 33-56. NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
37. Stuart, R. (1996). The Design of Virtual Environment. Cambridge, MA: McGraw-Hill.
38. Tan, S. D., Gergle, D., Scupelli, G. P., Pausch, R. (2004). Physically large displays improve path integration in 3D virtual navigation tasks. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 439-446. New York, NY: ACM.

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》。台北：田園城市文化。
2. 李易修，李其瑋，(2002），網際網路3D 圖形展現模式之研究。
3. 危芷芬譯，(1995)，FrankT.McAn著：《環境心理學》，台北：五南圖書。
4. 許玉鈴譯，(2008)，Moggidge著：《關鍵設計報告-改變過去影像未來的互動設計法則》，台北：城邦文化事業股份有限公司 麥浩斯出版。
5. 陳道欣、林建仁，(1999）， Internet 影像虛擬實境創作與運用，台北：碁峰。
6. 陳天惠，(2006)，應用資料包絡分析模式於工作負荷之分析與改善，博士論文，成功大學。
7. 陳建雄(1999），色彩辨識度與應用在使用者介面設計上的探討。工業設計，27(2)，58-63。
8. 陳建雄譯，(2002)，Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. 著。《互動設計：跨越人─電腦互動》，台北市：全華科技。
9. 張文德，(2008)，尋路導航輔助設計之比較與應用，國立臺灣科技大學工商業設計系研究所博士論文。
10. 日本色研事業株式会社(2007）。PCCS。取自：http://www.sikiken.co.jp/pccs/index.html
11. 曾俊豪 (2005)，空間能力、視角及情緒因素對於3D 電玩遊戲玩家尋路行為中認知資源分配之影響，國立交通大學傳播設計研究所碩士論。
12. 鄭巧玉譯，(2012)，Steven Hoober & Eric Berkman 著。《行動介面設計模式》，台北市：碁峯資訊股份有限公司。
13. 蔡仁詩，(2011)，網路地圖使用者介面之使用經驗與資訊呈現，國立臺灣科技大學工商業設計系研究所碩士論文。
14. 集邦科技，(2005/07/07)，WitsView：今年平板電腦出貨九成為9.7吋與10.1吋， 7吋後續則具成長潛力，行動智庫，ivan撰稿)取自： http://www.smartmobix.com.tw/witsview_computex_tablet_panel_size_201106
15. 黃文娟譯，(2010)，David Gibson著：《不迷路的設計》，台北：旗標出版有限公司。
16. 施建仲，(2010)，使用線性加速感測晶片的計步器，國立中央大學資訊工程研究所碩士論文。