近年來，科技的快速發展帶動相關產品的世代更新，也影響使用者選擇科技產品的因素，不再只是產品是否能夠滿足自身需求，與使用上是否方便有效－因為市面上的競爭產品多能提供類似的功能以符合使用者購買產品的需求，而優使性（Usability）方面的差異也不至於造成決定性的影響；決定使用者會不會購買的最大因素是在體驗產品後，是否可以產正面的感受與評價－亦即良好的使用者經驗（User Experience）。另一方面，智慧玩具為最近市面上非常熱門的科技產品，它結合了人工智慧與物聯網技術，讓原本的玩具功能變得有更多可能性，但本文整理過去文獻發現：雖然近年來使用者經驗廣泛被研究討論，但都沒有適用智慧玩具的一套系統化工具幫助廠商評估產品的使用者經驗是否符合設計預期。
因此本研究參考過去學者所提出的三階段使用者經驗評估模型，針對智慧玩具產品進行開發一項專屬的使用者經驗評估工具。首先依據智慧玩具的特性提出四項重要需求考量－趣味娛樂、科學技術、學習思考、互動交流－並根據四項重要需求考量找出對應的有效特徵－這些特徵是廠商對外宣稱產品效果時常用的語彙，所以有利於廠商與使用者經驗架構連結。以產品的有效特徵連結使用者經驗的四層架構後，本研究開發的評估工具使用質化檢核表的方式確認產品與使用者互動過程的完整性，亦即：產品的有效特徵滿足使用者的互動需求、需求的滿足讓使用者產生相對的感知，以及使用者將感知透過歸屬過程將情感體驗與產品連結。透過確認以上的使用者經驗產生循環，將需求考量、有效特徵、使用者感知與最終的情感體驗連結起來，形成一套完整的評估架構。
針對工具的驗證，本研究邀請6位產品評估專家來試行評估10項智慧玩具產品，並與3家產品開發商合作實際評估產品；另外專家與廠商也針對工具概念、施行程序與實用性給予意見回饋。評估結果顯示：在趣味娛樂方面，智慧玩具要能提供多樣化選擇與使用者感官上的刺激；在科學技術方面，智慧玩具要有多種創新或獨特的互動方式；在學習思考方面，智慧玩具必須要操作簡單的，同時給予適當的步驟指引與正向回饋；在互動交流方面，智慧玩具本身的安全與可靠度是讓家長放心的重要因素，並且產品要提供親子互動的功能。本研究的評估結果可提供給未來智慧玩具廠商進行新產品開發時的參考。

In recent years, the rapid development of science and technology has prompted many technology-based products to appear in the market. The user’s choice of technology-based products thus no longer depends mainly on whether the product can fulfill their needs and whether it is easy to use. Competitive products launched on the market may provide similar functions to fulfilled the needs and the difference in product usability may not be critical. The determinant factor now is whether good user experience exists after interacting with product. Smart toys are very popular product on the market recently. It combines AI and IoT technology to make the original toy versatile. Literature review showed that user experience has been widely discussed in recent studies. However, there is no systematic methodology to evaluate whether the user experience is generated as expected in the product design process in the literature, especially for smart toys.
This study referenced to a three-stage user experience evaluation model in literature to develop a specific user experience evaluation framework for smart toys. Firstly four important need considerations based on the characteristics of smart toys were proposed: Entertainment、Science and Technology、Learning and Thinking、Social Interaction. According to the four considerations, the corresponding effective features were given, which are common vocabularies used in the marketing by manufacturers so that they can easily relates those vocabularies to the evaluation framework. Upon linking effective features to the four-layer user experience evaluation framework, the evaluation tool of this study used qualitative checklists to confirm completion of user experience generation process, including effective features fulfill needs of the user, need fulfillment generates corresponding perception from the user, and the user attributes experiential feelings to the product. Through this cyclic process, need considerations in interaction, effective features of the product, user perceptions for the product, and experiential feelings of the product from the user about the process were linked together to form a comprehensive evaluating framework.
As for tool validation, six experienced product evaluators were invited to conduct trial assessment for 10 smart toys and three actual manufacturers were collaborated in a realistic evaluation process. Their feedback regarding the design, implementation and practicality of the tool were also collected. In general, the evaluation results showed that: for entertainment, the product should provide a variety of choices and user sensory stimuli; for science and technology, the product must have innovative or unique interactions and giving users a special response in interaction; for learning and thinking, the product must be simple to operate, while giving appropriate step-by-step instructions and positive feedback; for social interaction, the stability of the product is an important factor to reassure the parents, and the product should facilitate parent-child interaction. The abovementioned recommendations provide future smart toy manufacturers valuable references for developing new products.

[1]A. Vermeeren, L.-C. Law, V. Roto, M. Obrist, J. Hoonhout, and K. Väänänen, User experience evaluation methods: Current state and development needs. 2010, pp. 521-530.
[2] P. Zimmermann, "Beyond Usability – Measuring Aspects of User Experience," Doctor, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, 2008.
[3] N. Bevan, "What is the difference between the purpose of usability and user experience evaluation methods," in Proceedings of the Workshop UXEM, 2009, vol. 9, pp. 1-4.
[4] M. Hassenzahl, S. Diefenbach, and A. Göritz, Needs, affect, and interactive products-Facets of user experience. 2011, pp. 353–362.
[5] M. Hassenzahl and N. Tractinsky, "User experience - a research agenda," Behaviour & Information Technology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 91-97, 2006/03/01 2006.
[6] 陳計策 and 賴宛靖, "迎接AIoT智慧時代," ed, 2018 1.
[7] J. Bughin, J. Seong, J. Manyika, M. Chui, and R. Joshi. (2018 September). Notes from the AI frontier: Modeling the impact of AI on the world economy. Available: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/artificial-intelligence/notes-from-the-ai-frontier-modeling-the-impact-of-ai-on-the-world-economy
[8] 許桂芬. (2016 1). AI讓智慧家電真正Smart. Available: https://www.iii.org.tw/Focus/FocusDtl.aspx?f_type=1&f_sqno=kFi9BTxkZgNrO1cpkwYIPQ__&fm_sqno=12
[9] 趙慶翔, "跨出舒適圈，台灣MCU廠商拚突圍," ed. MoneyDJ新聞, 2019 3.
[10] H. B. Gonzalez and J. J. Kuenzi, "Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer," 2012.
[11] 黃瑽寧. (2018 9). 從STEM教育，進化為STEAM教育. Available: https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5074185-%20%E9%BB%83%E7%91%BD%E5%AF%A7%EF%BC%9A%E5%BE%9ESTEM%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%EF%BC%8C%E9%80%B2%E5%8C%96%E7%82%BASTEAM%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2/?isPaging=false
[12] (2018 5). SMART TOY REVENUES TO GROW BY ALMOST 200% FROM 2018 TO $18 BILLION BY 2023. Available: https://www.juniperresearch.com/press/press-releases/smart-toy-revenues-to-grow-by-almost-200
[13] 簡惠茹, "玩具就像活起來了！ 程式語言打造智慧玩具," in 自由時報, ed, 2018 5.
[14] C. E. Osgood, G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum, The measurement of meaning (The measurement of meaning.). Oxford, England: Univer. Illinois Press, 1957, pp. 342-342.
[15] 林暐璇, "應用於智慧聯網裝置雛型之使用者經驗工具開發與驗證," 碩士, 工業管理系, 國立臺灣科技大學, 台北市, 2017.
[16] J. Amery, Children's palliative care in Africa. Oxford University Press, USA, 2009.
[17] D. E. Levin and B. Rosenquest, "The increasing role of electronic toys in the lives of infants and toddlers: should we be concerned?," Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 242-247, 2001.
[18] G. Butterworth, Principles of developmental psychology: An introduction. Psychology Press, 2014.
[19] K. Cagiltay, N. Kara, and C. Cigdem, "Smart Toy Based Learning," 2014, pp. 703-711.
[20] N. Kara, C. C. Aydin, and K. Cagiltay, "Design and development of a smart storytelling toy," Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 288-297, 2014/05/04 2014.
[21] P. Ihamäki and K. Heljakka, "Smart Toys for Game-based and Toy-based Learning."
[22] M. Roussou, "Learning by doing and learning through play: an exploration of interactivity in virtual environments for children," Computers in Entertainment (CIE), vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 10-10, 2004.
[23] S. Price and Y. Rogers, "Let’s get physical: The learning benefits of interacting in digitally augmented physical spaces," Computers & Education, vol. 43, no. 1-2, pp. 137-151, 2004.
[24] B. Schmitt, "Experiential marketing," Journal of marketing management, vol. 15, no. 1-3, pp. 53-67, 1999.
[25] M. Hassenzahl, "The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product," in Funology: Springer, 2003, pp. 31-42.
[26] J. Forlizzi and K. Battarbee, "Understanding experience in interactive systems," in Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, 2004, pp. 261-268: ACM.
[27] I. DIS, "9241-210: 2010. Ergonomics of human system interaction-Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems," International Standardization Organization (ISO). Switzerland, 2009.
[28] M. Hassenzahl, "User experience (UX): towards an experiential perspective on product quality," in IHM, 2008, vol. 8, pp. 11-15.
[29] E. L.-C. Law, V. Roto, M. Hassenzahl, A. P. Vermeeren, and J. Kort, "Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach," in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2009, pp. 719-728: ACM.
[30] P. M. Desmet and P. Hekkert, "Framework of product experience," International journal of design, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 57-66, 2007.
[31] L.-E. Janlert and E. Stolterman, "The character of things," Design Studies, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 297-314, 1997.
[32] E. Hollnagel, "Is affective computing an oxymoron?," International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 59, no. 1-2, pp. 65-70, 2003.
[33] J. J. Kaye, "Evaluating experience-focused HCI," presented at the CHI '07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 2007.
[34] S. Kujala and K. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, "Value of information systems and products: Understanding the users' perspective and values," Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), vol. 9, no. 4, p. 4, 2009.
[35] M. Hassenzahl, M. Burmester, and F. Koller, "AttrakDiff: A questionnaire to measure perceived hedonic and pragmatic quality," in Mensch & Computer, 2003, pp. 187-196.
[36] B. Laugwitz, T. Held, and M. Schrepp, "Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire," in Symposium of the Austrian HCI and Usability Engineering Group, 2008, pp. 63-76: Springer.
[37] M. SheldonK and K. ElliottAJ, "What issatisfyingaboutsatisfyingevents," Testing10 candidatepsychologicalneeds, vol. 80, pp. 325-339, 2001.
[38] D. Watson, L. A. Clark, and A. Tellegen, "Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales," Journal of personality and social psychology, vol. 54, no. 6, p. 1063, 1988.
[39] N. Kano, K. Seraku, and F. Takashi, "S. Tsuji (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality," The Journal of the Japanese Society For Quality Control, vol. 14, no. 2, 1984.
[40] R. G. Lomax and R. E. Schumacker, A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. psychology press, 2004.