研究生: |
莊雅量 Yaliang - Chuang |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
CAKE:擴充性感性意象調查與分析系統 CAKE: An Extensible Kansei Survey and Analysis System |
指導教授: |
陳玲鈴
Lin-Lin Chen |
口試委員: |
林榮泰
Rung-Tai Lin 莊明振 Ming-Chuen Chuang 陳建雄 Chien-Hsiung Chen 鄧怡莘 Yi-Shin Deng |
學位類別: |
博士 Doctor |
系所名稱: |
設計學院 - 設計系 Department of Design |
論文出版年: | 2007 |
畢業學年度: | 96 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 121 |
中文關鍵詞: | 感性工學 、意象調查 、產品設計 、可擴充標示語言 |
外文關鍵詞: | Product Design, User Experience, Kansei Engineering, XML |
相關次數: | 點閱:625 下載:10 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
隨著生活水平的提升,消費者對於產品在設計上所傳達的美感經驗日益講究。意象設計與研究已成為重要的議題,近五年內已有超過百篇論文發表於國內外的期刊與研討會。然而,由於欠缺適當的統合機制,以致於這些豐碩的成果只能被個別的閱讀,而無法串連成一整體的知識庫,以進行更深入的探索。有鑑於此,本研究參考現有之感性工學資訊系統,運用跨平台整合見長之XML(Extensible Markup Language) 技術,建構一具擴充性與整合性的意象調查與分析系統─CAKE (Computer-Aided Kansei Enginerring)。
本系統主要包含兩個部分:1.意象調查系統:協助研究者設計與執行意象調查,並將資料儲存在格式統一之XML檔案中,作為整合的基礎;2. 意象資料分析系統:運用資料轉換與視覺化分析工具,從調查的結果中歸納出研究的發現。為促進意象資料收集的效率與正確性,本研究運用電腦互動技術與即時運算機制,開發四種互動式調查方法與兩個大樣本刺激物調查工具,並以對照實驗證明其在調查效率與信度上的增進與表現。透過實際應用於汽車、椅子與茶壺等研究,驗證本系統確實能有效幫助意象調查與研究分析。同時,藉由本系統的開放式架構,本研究也展示了開發新的調查方法與應用工具,擴充其適用範圍與實務應用的可能性。
User experience is one of the most important issues in design. Lots of methods have been proposed for experience design, among which, Kansei Engineering is frequently employed for helping designers understand users’ preference and applying it to products. With the help of advanced computer technologies, several computerized Kansei Engineering systems have been developed. However, due to the arbitrary format of data representation schemes and the absence of integration mechanisms, it is not easy to merge or to compare the results between different studies. For this problem, a comprehensive CAKE (Computer-Aided Kansei Engineering) system with extensibility is developed by using the XML (Extensible Markup Language) technology.
There are two major components of this system: tools for survey and for data analysis. The survey tool facilitates researchers to design an interactive experiment and use it to collecting users’ preference data efficiently and effectively. By visualizing the results of frequently used statistics, the analysis tool assists researchers to examine the data and accumulate the findings into an XML file. In order to improve the efficiency and accuracy of data collection, there are six types of interactive survey tools developed. Among them, there are two tools for investigating large set of stimuli. By conducting the experiments to compare with the traditional approaches, the improvement of efficiency and reliability of these computer-based methods was investigated. This system has been applied to several studies with products, such as automobiles, sofas, and kettles.
中日文參考文獻
1.大澤光編 (2000) 。印象の工学とはなにか,東京:丸善プラネット株式会社。
2.王鉅富 (2003) 。 造形於形變過程中與情感意象之關係研究─以汽車造形為例,國立台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文,台北:台灣科技大學。
3.朱章賢 (2001)。利用網路平台技術建構意象調查系統,大同大學工業設計研究所碩士論文,台北:大同大學。
4.林彥呈、許家斌、王宗興、管倖生、張育銘、陳國祥、鄧怡莘 (2000)。網頁要素對感性認知影響之研究,工業設計,28(2),122-128。
5.何明泉 (2004) 。複合式感性工學應用於產品開發之整合性研究-子計劃一:振動覺與其它感覺交互作用之研究(II),國科會研究報告(No. NSC 92-2213-E-224-029)。
6.周君瑞、陳鴻源、劉家成、陳國祥、管倖生、鄧怡莘、張育銘 (2000)。電動刮鬍刀產品造形與感性之關連性研究,工業設計,28(2),142-147。
7.邵承珍、陳俊中、童鼎鈞、陳國祥、管倖生、鄧怡莘、張育銘 (2000)。行動電話產品造形與消費者感性關連之建立,工業設計, 28(2),154-159。
8.長町三生 (1995)。感性工学のおはなし,東京:日本規格協会。
9.長沢伸也 (2002)。感性をめぐる商品開發-その方法と実際 (pp. 3-23),東京:日本出版サービス。
10.翁嘉聲(2004)。汽車造形形變對於意象認知與美感反應之關係研究,台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文,台北:台灣科技大學。
11.高清漢(2002)。從風格原型看泳鏡造形特徵與意象的關係,設計學報, 7(1),33-46。
12.梁德聰(2000)。立體物件形變之動態展示於多向度認知空間之應用─以汽車造形為例,台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文,台北:台灣科技大學。
13.莊明振、馬永川(2001)。以微電子產品為例探討產品意象與造形呈現對應關係,設計學報,6(1),1-16。
14.莊明振、陳俊智(2004)。產品形態特徵與構成關係影響消費者感性評價之研究-以水壺的設計為例,設計學報,9(3),43-58。
15.莊雅量(2001)。應用音樂性聲音訊號傳達訊息屬性的可能性研究-以行動電話之“聽聲辨人”為例,交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文,新竹:交通大學。
16.陳國祥、管倖生、鄧怡莘、張育銘(2001)。感性工學─將感性予以理性化的手法,工業設計,29(1),2-16。
17.黃世忻(2000)。建立流行色彩意象空間之調查研究,台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文,台北:台灣科技大學。
18.葉俊棋(2004)。產品造形二維與三維立體形變過程之比較與形變情感意象研究-以椅子造形為例,台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文,台北:台灣科技大學。
19.蕭世文(2000)。造形與色彩對產品意象的影響研究及諮詢程式系統設計,第八屆國科會工業工程與管理學門專題研究計畫成果研討會論文集,台北:台灣科技大學。
20.薛承甫(1999)。消費性產品涉入程度與造形選擇關係之研究-以行動電話為例,成功大學工業設計研究所碩士論文,台南:成功大學。
英文參考文獻
1.Aho, A. V., Ullman, J. D., & Hopcroft, J. E. (1983). Data structures and algorithms. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
2.Andreassen, C., & Fletcher, P. (2007). Early childhood longitudinal study, birth cohort (ECLS–B) Psychometric report for the 2-year data collection. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007084.
3.Barak, A. (1999). Psychological applications on the Internet: A discipline on the threshold of a new millennium. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8(4), 231-245.
4.Bárcenas, P., Elortondo, F. J. P., & Albisu, M. (2003). Comparison of free choice profiling, direct similarity measurements and hedonic data for ewes' milk cheeses sensory evaluation. International Dairy Journal, 13(1), 67-77.
5.Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Wedel, M. (1995). The effect of alternative methods of collecting similarity data for multidimensional scaling. International Journal for Research in Marketing, 12(4), 363-371.
6.Böckenholt, U. (2004). Comparative judgments as an alternative to ratings: Identifying the scale origin. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 453-465.
7.Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., & Rivest, R. L. (1990). Introduction to algorithms. Boston: MIT Press.
8.Chuang, M. C., Chang, C. C., & Hsu, S. H. (2001). Perceptual factors underlying user preferences toward product form of mobile phones. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27(4), 247-258.
9.Chuang, M. C., & Ma, Y. C. (2001). Expressing the expected product images in product design of micro-electronic products. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27(4), 233-245.
10.Chang, W. C., & Wu, T. Y. (2007). Exploring types and characteristics of product forms. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 3-14.
11.Chang, Y.-M., & Chen, H.-Y. (2007). A neural network-based computer aided design tool for automotive form design. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 43(1-4), 136-150
12.Dahan, E., & Hauser, J. R. (2002). The virtual customer. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19 (5), 332-353.
13.Debreceny, R. & Gray, G. L. (2001). The production and use of semantically rich accounting reports on the Internet: XML and XBRL. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 2(1), 47–74.
14.Desmet, P. M. A., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57-66.
15.Epstein, J., & Klinkenberg, W. D. (2001). From Eliza to Internet: A brief history of computerized assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(3), 295-314.
16.Falahee, M., & MacRae, A. W. (1997). Perceptual variation among drinking waters: The reliability of sorting and ranking data for multidimensional scaling. Food Quality and Preference, 8(5-6), 389-394.
17.Golden, L. L., Albaum G., & Zimmer M. R. (1987). The numerical comparative scale: An economical format for retail image measurement. Journal of Retailing, 63(4), 393-410.
18.Grimsæth, K. (2005). Kansei engineering: Linking emotions and product features. Retrieved April 31, 2007, from http://design.ntnu.no/forskning/artikler/2005/artikkel_Kansei_Engineering _K_Grimsath.pdf
19.Heise, D. R. (2001). Project Magellan: Collecting cross-cultural affective meanings via the Internet. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 5(3), Retrieved July 31, 2005, from http://http://www.sociology.org/content/vol005.003/mag.html.
20.Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247-257.
21.Hsee, C. K., & Leclerc, F. (1998). Will products look more attractive when presented separately or together? Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 175-186.
22.Hsiao, K. A., & Chen, L. L. (2006). Fundamental dimensions of affective responses to product shapes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(6), 553-564.
23.Hsiao, S. W., & Wang, H. P. (1998). Applying the semantic transformation method to product form design. Design Studies, 19(3), 309-330.
24.Hsu, S. H., Chuang, M. C., & Chang, C. C. (2000). A semantic differential study of designers' and users' product form perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25(4), 375-391.
25.Huang, H. M. (2006). Do print and Web surveys provide the same results? Computers in Human Behavior, 22(3), 334-350.
26.Hughes, G. D. (1969). Some confounding effects of forced choice scales. Journal of Marketing Research, 6(2), 223-226.
27.Hughes, G. D. (1975). Upgrading the semantic differential. Journal of the Market Research Society, 17(1), 41-44.
28.Johnson, R. A., & Wichern, D. W. (2002) Transformations to near normality. In Applied multivariate statistical analysis (5th ed., pp.194-202). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products: An introduction to the new human factors. London: Taylor & Francis.
30.Lai, H.-H., Chang, Y.-M., & Chang, H.-C. (2005). A robust design approach for enhancing the feeling quality of a product: A car profile case study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(5), 445-460.
31.Landon, E. L. (1971). Order bias, the ideal rating, and the semantic differential. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(3), 375-378.
32.Lukin, M. E., Dowd, E. T., Plake, B. S., & Kraft, R. G.(1985). Comparing computerized versus traditional psychological assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 1(1), 49-58.
33.Marzano, S. (2000). New values for the new millennium. newvaluenews, 5, The Netherlands: Philips Design.
34.Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
35.McBurney, D. H., & White T. L. (2004). True experiments, part 1: Single-factor designs. In Research methods (6th ed., pp. 265-285). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
36.Moggridge, B. (1999). Expressing experiences in design. interactions, 6(4), 17-25.
37.Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15(1), 3-11.
38.Nagamachi, M. (2002). Kansei engineering as a powerful consumer-oriented technology for product development. Applied Ergonomics, 33(3), 289-294.
39.Nielsen, J. (2004). Card sorting: How many users to test. Retrieved July 17, 2007 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040719.html.
40.Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
41.Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design. New York: Basic Books.
42.Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
43.Peterson, R. A. (2000). Rating scales. In Constructing effective questionnaires (pp. 61-81). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.Petiot, J. F., & Yannou, B. (2004). Measuring consumer perceptions for a better comprehension, specification and assessment of product semantics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 33(6), 507-525.
45.Ramsay, J. O. (1981). How to use MULTISCALE. In S. S. Shiffman, M. L. Reynolds, & F. W. Young (Eds.), Introduction to multidimensional scaling: Theory, methods, and applications (pp.211-235). London: Academic Press.
46.Ramsay, J. O. (1997). MULTISCALE manual (extended version). Retrieved January 31, 2006, from ftp://ego.psych.mcgill.ca/pub/ramsay/multiscl.
47.Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven: Yale University Press
48.Smith, S. M. (1999). A short guide to MDPREF: Multidimensional analysis of preference data. Retrieved Jan 31, 2006, from http://marketing.byu.edu/htmlpages/books/pcmds/mdpref.html.
49.Smith, S. M., & Albaum, G. S. (2005). Measurement and scaling in marketing research. In Fundamentals of marketing research (pp. 371-412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.Tidwell, D. (2002). Introduction to XML. Retrieved December 20, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://ibm.com/developerWorks.
51.Tufte, R. E. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed.). Cheshire: Graphics Press.
52.Tullis, T., & Wood, L. (2004, June). How Many Users Are Enough for a Card-Sorting Study? Paper presented at the Usability Professionals Association Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
53.Wells, W. D., & Smith, G. (1960). Four semantic rating scales compared. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44(6), 393-397.
54.Williams, S. P., Scifleet, P. A., & Hardy, C. A. (2006). Online business reporting: An information management perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 26(2), 91-101.
55.Wilson, F. R., Genco, K. T., & Yager, G. G. (1985). Assessing the equivalence of paper-and-pencil vs. computerized tests: Demonstration of a promising methodology. Computers in Human Behavior, 1(3-4), 265-275.
56.Van der Kloot, W. A., & Van Herk, H. (1991). Multidimensional scaling of sorting data: A comparison of three procedures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(4), 563-581.
57.Yang, S.-M., Nagamachi, M., & Lee, S.-Y. (1999). Rule-based inference model for the kansei engineering system. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24(5), 459-471.