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手持式汽車導航儀（Portable Navigation Device, PND），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PND產品，以使用者對PND操作觀點，探討對於PND觸控式螢幕介面架構之各項操作模式，使用者心智模式與觸控式螢幕介面設計的關連性。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。
研究方法為以使用者在操作三組不同形式觸控螢幕介面架構（平衡對稱圖示全功能介面A、立體大圖示意主功能式介面 B、中心圖示重點功能式介面C）任務時，測試其操作績效與互動模式主客觀感受評價，作為未來介面架構設計時之參考。研究結果說明如下：
1. 三組觸控式螢幕介面架構在操作任務時間與按鍵次數績效上之比較
(1) 基本設定的音量調整、語音警示與螢幕畫面調整設定，任務操作時間與按鍵次數績效，結果以介面架構C在基本功能設定表現最佳；而音量語音提示調整在操作按鍵次數有交互作用的產生。
(2) 進階設定導航地點登錄設定的操作時間，受測者之間的交互作用有顯著差異。
(3) 進階設定語音導航功能靜音、雙畫面切換與中止取消導航任務的操作時間與按鍵次數績效，介面架構A績效最佳。而在操作按鍵次數有交互作用的產生。
(4) 導航任務目的地設定以介面架構C對受測者的人機介面認知最容易，相對操作次數績效最好。
(5) 整體任務績效介面架構有交互作用產生。在整體任務的操作次數的表現上，介面架構C的操作次數（平均208.80次）比架構A的操作次數（平均217.60次）與架構B的操作次數（平均230.45次）少，基本三款介面架構差異不大，都在可以接受設計平均水準之上。
2. 使用者滿意度QUIS評量表分析：
(1) 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。
(2) 操作時的用字及軟體資訊，介面架構 A之績效表現最好，其易於操作辨識對稱介面架構與功能術語用詞，較被受測者接受。

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 necessary attribute to most fashion portable navigation devices (PND). 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 research study is to analyze the structure of PND user interface based on touch sensitive screen interaction. For every operation mode, the relationship between user interaction stereotype and touch sensitive screen user interface design was analyzed from the point of view of usability. This research study was performed based on the actual operation and theory according to the related user interface design documents.

The research approach is to apply the User-Tool-Task mode to operate three different PND touch sensitive screen user interface (i.e., A is designed with balanced symmetrical full function icons, B is designed with large 3D primary function icons, and C is designed with central important function icons) and collect data of participant’s subjective and objective interaction satisfactions in order to use this study as a reference for designing the future PND user interface structure. The result of study is explained as follows:

1. The comparison of task time and amount of button clicks among the three groups of touch sensitive screen user interface structure.
(1) The interface with structure C is proven to have the best task time with least number of button clicks for the basic function of volume adjustment, voice warning, screen picture adjustments, and adjustment of voice guidance volume.
(2) The task time of advanced navigation location registration shows significant interaction effects among different users’ task performance.
(3) The user interface of structure A shows the best performance results regarding task time and amount of push buttons for the advanced voice navigation functions, mute, switch between screens, and cancel of navigation tasks.
(4) The user interface of structure C is found to be the easiest for users to setup or input location pertaining to navigation task.
(5) There is an interaction effect in the performance of the overall interface structure. The user performance regarding total button clicks of user interface structure C (mean= 208.80) is better than the user interface of structure A (mean= 217.60) and structure B (mean= 230.45). There is no significant difference among all the three groups of interface structures and all of them are acceptable because of reaching the required design specifications.

2. The followings are the analysis of user’s satisfaction based on the QUIS comments:
(1) The user interface of structure C has the worst performance because it’s task procedures and steps are not easy to follow and understand.
(2) The user interface of structure A has the best performance in the choice of words and software information. It is easy to operate and understand because of it’s balanced interface structure and functional terms. Most of the participants found the interface A as the most acceptable one.

1. Brinck, T., Gergle, D., & Wood, D. S., 2002, Usability for The Web:Designing Web Sites That Work, Morgan Kaufmanna, San Francisco
2. Kay, A. (1969). The Reactive Engine. PhD Dissertation, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Utah.
3. Kreifeldt, J. G (1982). Consumer product design projects for human factors Classes. Proceedings of the HFS 26th Annual Meeting, pp. 735-739.
4. Kreifeldt, J. G., & Lin ,R.-T. (2001).Ergonmics in wearable computer design.Internation Journal Industrial Ergonmics, 27, pp. 259-269
5. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we Live. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
6. Miller, G. A., 1956, “The magic number seven plus or minus two: some limits of our capacity for information processing,” Psychological Review, 63(2), pp. 81-87.
7. Moggride, B. (2006). Designing Interactions. Boston, MA: The MIT Press
8. Myers, B., Hudson, S. E., & Pausch, R. (2000). Past, present and future of user interface software tools. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 3-28.
9. Norman, D. A. & Draper, S. W. (eds.). (1986). User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Norman, D. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books。
11. Norman, D. A. (1995). Things That Make Us Smart (心科技)，黃賢楨譯，台北：時報出版。
12. Norman, D. A. (2000). The Psychology of Everyday Things (設計心理學)，卓耀宗譯，台北：遠流出版。
13. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books。
14. Nielsen, J. (1993) Usability Engineering. Boston, MA : Academic press.
15. Preece, J. Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction Design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & sons.。
16. Richard, E. Mayer. (1980).The Promise of Cognitive Psychology (認知心理學)，洪碧霞、黃瑞煥、陳婉枚等譯，高雄：復文出版。
17. Underwood, B. J. & Shaughnessy, J .J. (1975). Experimentation in Psychology (心理學實驗研究法)，洪蘭 & 曾志朗合譯，台北：遠流出版。
18. 清華大學 (2006) 創新育成中心第191期電子報產業訊息(2006/5/8~12)
19. 矢野經濟研究所 (2006) 2005年全球衛星導航系統市場規模 (2006/5/9)
20. 工研院經貿中心IEK (2006)全球手持式汽車導航市場預估 (2006/06)
21. 陳怡貞 (2002) ，消費者採用行為與意象感受程度之關聯性研究─以數位相機為例，國立成功大學工業設計研究所，碩士論文。
22. 鄭昭明 (1993) ，認知心理學理論與實踐，台北：桂冠心理學叢書。
23. 原研哉，(2003)。設計中的設計，台北：磐築創意出版。
24. 唐國豪，(2003)。「人機互動」之研究，科學發展2003年8月，368期，頁18~23。
25. 陳建雄 譯，(2006)。互動設計 (原作者：Preece, J., Rogers Y., and Sharp. H.)，台北：全華科技出版。
26. 蕭瑞麟 (2006) ，不用數字的研究 (鍛鍊深度思考力的質性研究) ，台北 :臺灣培生教育出版。
27. 吳志富、王玥琦. (2004)，車用導航系統之使用者介面選單設計研究，大同大學工業設計研究所碩士論文。
28. 陳建雄 (Chen, C.-H.). (1999). 由使用者導向互動設計之觀點探討介面可用性 (Interface Usability in User-Centered Interaction Design). 銘傳大學跨世紀學術研討會設計組論文集。銘傳大學，民國88年3月13日，pp.99-109。
29. 葛偉誠、陳建雄、林恆毅. (2006)，工業用無線電話手機音量與瑩幕對比功能使用性研究，工業設計，第三十四卷，第一期，p46~48。
30. 吳建和、柯志祥. (2002)，小型資訊產品介面操作性研究－以行動電話為例，國立台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
31. 陳建宏、柯志祥. (2005)，電子地圖在導覽系統上的使用差異性研究，國立台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
32. 亞洲電子工程專輯專題「易用性ease of use」設計大師級研討會報導http://www.eettaiwan.com/ART(2007/4/11)