過去產品全倚靠設計師專業知識進行設計，導致新產品開發過程中充滿不確定與風險性。惟有將使用者真正的需求納入設計開發的考量中，才能面對市場的考驗。但面對設計的觀點，設計師與使用者仍有很大的認知差異存在，設計師必須在設計初期便了解使用者的真正需求並透過創造力去滿足。因此，本研究透過「訪談法」與「問卷調查法」來進行設計師與消費者對智慧型手機造形意象之認知差異。首先，透過訪談A公司設計師以了解該品牌智慧型手機樣本之市場區隔。其次，透過A公司設計師與消費者的問卷調查，可以分別了解到A公司設計師對智慧型手機之造形特徵與造形意象之認知，還有消費者對該品牌智慧型手機之造型意象認知。藉此，了解設計師與消費者對造形意象之認知差異，並進行使用者需求與設計屬性之間的關連性分析與預測。研究成果如下：
(1) 設計師在「庸俗與典雅」造形意象上的掌握比較容易達成，而設計師在「繁複與簡潔」、「嚴肅與輕鬆」、「粗糙與精緻」造形意象上的掌握較不易。
(2) 設計師在「典雅的」造形意象上得到一般消費者認同的頻率最多，且能呈現「典雅的」造形意象的手機有4支手機之造形特徵。此外，設計師在「簡潔的」、「嚴肅的」、「平凡的」、「精緻的」造形意象上分別得到消費者1次認同。換言之，能呈現「簡潔的」、「嚴肅的」、「平凡的」、「精緻的」造形意象的手機分別為1支手機之造形特徵。
(3) 透過彙整造形意象與造形特徵結果顯示，能呈現「簡潔的」、「嚴肅的」、「平凡的」、「精緻的」造形意象的主要造形特徵數最多，皆為15項造形特徵，且皆為1支手機之造形特徵所能呈現此造形意象。反之，能呈現「典雅的」造形意象的主要造形特徵數最少，僅有2項主要造形特徵，共有4支手機之造形特徵能呈現此意象。從以上結果推論，越多支手機之造形特徵能代表該意象，表示該意象之特徵數越不明顯，除非這些手機之造形特徵皆相同。

New product development process is full of uncertainties and risks as a result of product design rely on the designer’s expertise in the past. We must consider the real needs of users in order to face the market tests in design development process. Because there are a lot of perceived differences between the designers and consumers in designing, designers must understand the real needs of users and satisfy users by creativity in the beginning of design process. This study research the designers and consumers’ perceived difference on the smart phone form image by interview and questionnaire survey. First of all, understanding of the smart phone market segmentation by A company designers interviews, then understanding of designers and consumers’ perceived on the smart phone form features and form images by designers and consumers’ questionnaire survey. Finaly, the study analysis and forecast the the connection between user needs and design attributes by understanding the designers and consumers’ perceived difference on the smart phone form image. The following are research results:
(1) It’s easier for designers to achieve the form image of "Vulgarity and elegance", but on the other habnd, it’s more difficult to grasp the form image of "Complex and simple," "serious and relaxed," "rough and refined."
(2) The form image of "Elegance" has been recognized by the general number of consumers, and there are 4 smart phones can show the feartures. Besides, the form image of "Simple," "Serious," "Featureless," "Fefined "only received a recognition, and there is 1 smart phone can show the feartures.
(3) The comparison results of form features and form images indicate that the form image of "Simple," "Serious," "Featureless," "Fefined "have the largest number of main form features, and there is 1 smart phone can show 15 form feartures. On the contrary, the form image of "Elegance" has the least number of main form features, and there is 4 smart phones can show 2 form feartures. The more form features of smart phones can show the form image, the form features of the form iamage more unobvious, unless these smart phones have the same form features.

David Fontana (2003). The secret language of symbols : a visual key to symbols & their meanings象徵的名詞知書房 (何盼盼, Trans.). 台北: 米娜貝爾.
Hsu, S.-H., Chuang, M.-C., & Chang, C.-C. (2000). A semantic differential study of designers & users product form perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25(4), 375-391.
Jan Burney (1991). Ettore Sottsass. London: TreFoil Publication Ltd.
Jenny Preece et al. (1994) Human-Computer Interation, England: Addison-Wesley Longman Limited, 151.
Jones, J. C. (1992). Design Methods (2nd ed.). London: Van Nostr& Reinhold.
Krippendorff, Klaus & Butter, Reinhart (1984). Product Semantics: Exploring the Symbolic Qualities of Form, Innovation, 3, 9-39.
Krippendorff, K., & Butter, R. (1984). Product Semantics: Exploring the Symbolic Qualities of Form, Innovation, The Journal of IDSA, 3(2), 4-9.
Kurt Rowland (1989). 模式與形態 (柯志偉, Trans. ). 六合.
Lin, Rungtai (1991). A Study of Evaluating Designs Sufficient for Iconic Interface Design: The Design Perspective. 明志工專學報, 23, 101-114.
Lynch Kevin (1967). 都市意象 (宋伯欽, Trans.). 台北書店, 8.
McCoy, Michael, (1984). Defining a new functionalism in design, Innovation, 3, 16-19.
Baxter, M., (1995). Product Design: Piratical methods for the systematic development of new products, Chapman & Hill, London.
Nishida, Hiroko, Hammer, Mitchell R., (1998). Cognitive differences between Japanese & Americans in their perceptions of difficult social situations, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 499- 529.

Norman D. A., & Draper,S. W. (1986) User Centered System Design, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 31-50.
Osgood, C.E., Suci, C.J. & Tannenbaum, P.H., (1957). The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Zdzislaw, M. Lewalski (1988). Product Esthetics, Design & Development Engineering. Nevada.
Roozenburg, N.F.M., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product Design: Fundamentals & Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken. 293-340.
Tjalve, E. (1979) A Short Course in Industrial Design. Butterworth & Co Ltd, 17-92.
Veryzer. JR, R. W. & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The Influence of Unity & Protypicality on Aesthetics Responses to New Product Designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 110, 374-394.
小林重順 (1991). 造形構成心理, 台北: 藝風堂.
丘永福 (1990). 設計基礎, 台北, 藝風堂.
丘永福 (1987). 造形原理, 台北, 藝風堂.
李再長 (1988). 認知型態、創造性思考與設計表現之關係, 國科會專題研究計劃成果報告, 22.
呂清夫 (1984). 造形原理, 雄獅.
呂清夫 (1995). 造形原理,雄獅圖書, 19-54.
林旻樺 (2001). 比較獲得台灣GD、美國IDEA、德國iF的產品之造形意象與造形特徵, 台灣科技大學, 台北市.
林崇宏 (1995) 公式化造形法則理論應用於產品造形設計之探討, 工業設計, 24(4), 16-26.
林銘煌 (1993). 產品語意學─後工業設計師：科技的詮釋者, 工業設計, 74.
孫全文 (1989). 建築與記號, 台北: 明文書局.
翁英惠 (1986). 造形原理, 台北市: 正文書局.
翁註重 (1994). 談建構產品語意認知空間, 工業設計, 82, 台北設計雜誌社.
張建成（2000）. 使用者對產品造形意象認知的影響因素研究. 交通大學工業工程與管理系, 新竹市.
許鳳火 (1985). 產品設計之理念與方法, 雲院書城, 227-253.
許鳳火 (1985). 語意區分法與法的設計評價研究, 工業設計.
陳文印 (1987). 產品造形象徵特質探討工業設計, (56), 37.
陳國祥 (1997). 造形風格之辨識與描述, 設計學報, 2(2), 130-132.
黃室苗 (1999). 產品語意學及其在設計上的應用, 工業設計雜誌, 82, 170-174.
楊清田 (1997). 構成一, 三民.
藤澤英昭著 (1991). 平面構成 (林品章, Trans.). 台北: 六和.
鄧成連, & 張文德 (2003). 市場形產品設計風格之塑造研究.
鄭昭明 (1993). 認知心理學─理論與實踐, 台北: 桂冠, 139-149.
鄭麗玉 (2009). 認知心理學－理論與應用 (三版), 五南.
歐麗娟 (1997). 唐詩中桃花源主題的流變─繼承、轉化與發揚,國立編譯館館刊, 26(2), 89-131.