駕駛員與車輛最重要的人機介面之一為整合式車內資訊系統平台，為了使人車互動更為和諧、安全，它的易學性、易用性和可靠性顯得十分重要。在設計階段通常使用介面構想草圖來進行討論、修改，只是這個過程往往缺乏道理可循，甚至個人觀感凌駕在可用性之上。為了讓以使用者為中心的設計更為明確，可以先行將草圖修正為畫面流程圖，並作進一步的分析、探討，這樣可以會讓介面成品更快地被接受。
透過畫面流程圖展開平台介面分析和操作分析，可以兼顧使用者介面原型的細節與使用者介面流程圖的綜觀。將組成介面的圖像分類，能夠讓我們預測圖像的意義和整體效用，顯示圖像可能比較偏重在它的解析度；而控制圖像則著重在對比度上；另外，文字圖像是否易讀；圖形圖像是否直覺；文字+圖形圖像是否匹配...等，都能初步說明介面設計的良窳。根據畫面流程反向進行操作分析，可以讓大致的步驟都有紀錄可循。例如，我們可以知道哪些任務具備重複性、資訊系統的所有功能項目位在選單的哪些階層...等，除了可以評判操作的邏輯性；更能在調整時看出變動的情形。
本研究是依據位於第二代資通訊LUXGEN THINK+車用整合資訊平台，為一個已經上市的產品，以畫面流程分析研究，除了能獲得一些評估與建議，主要目的是提供適當工具以作為下一代平台研發之用。

One of the major Human-Machine Interfaces for drivers and vehicles is In-Vehicle Advanced Information System. In order to make the interaction between drivers and vehicles more harmonious and safe, learnability, legibility, and reliability become very important. During the design stage, sketches of interface concepts are used for discussions and revisions. However, this process usually does not have a clear principle to follow. Individual conception even overrides usability. To order to make the user-centered design much clearer, the sketches of interface concepts can be transformed into a screen flow diagram, which can be used for further analysis and discussion. Then the interface can be quickly accepted.
By means of screen flow diagram that is spread out on the platform for interface analysis and operation analysis, it is possible to take into consideration the details of the user interface prototype and the overview of the interface flow diagram. If we categorize the interface icons, it will allow us to predict the meaning of the icons and the overall effectiveness. Icon display emphasizes its resolution; icon control is more focused on its contrast. Moreover, the issues, such as whether text images are easy to read, whether oval images are out of our intuition, whether text and oval images can match well, can initially distinguish the virtue and vice of an interface design. According to the reverse operation analysis of screen flow diagram, there is a way to keep track of the overall steps. For instance, we can know what the tasks that can be repeated are, in which hierarchical levels are the function items of the whole information system, and so on. Not only can we evaluate the operating logic, but we can also see the changes during the time for adjustment.
This research is based on the 2nd Telematics LUXGEN THINK+ In-Vehicle Integration Information Platform, which has been a product available in the market. The screen flow used to analyze the data in the research. In addition to getting some evaluation and suggestions, the main purpose is to offer an appropriate tool for the research and development of the next-generation information system platform.

中文部分：
1. 陳鵬仁(1990)，認知性設計，臺北科技大學設計資訊季刊，第1期：頁32-50。
2. Mark S. Sanders & Ernest J. McCormick (1998) ，人因工程 (許勝雄、吳水丕、彭游 譯) ，台中：滄海。
3. 方裕民(2003)，人與物的對話-互動式介面的理論與實務，台北：田園城市。
4. 李再長、黃雪玲、李永輝、王明揚(2005)，人因工程，台北：華泰。
5. 江翹竹、陳立杰(2005)，介面設計方法之流程圖(Screen flow)改善研究 以3G手機介面設計為例，中華民國設計學會2005年設計學術研究成果研討會論文集。
6. 江翹竹(2006)，利用物件化的觀念繪製3G手機介面螢幕流程圖，大同大學工業設計研究所碩士論文。
7. 黃淳康、鄭益志(2009)，汽車空調簡介與設計(連載一)，中華水電冷凍空調月刊，第34期：頁34-52。
8. 黃淳康、鄭益志(2009)，汽車空調簡介與設計(連載二)，中華水電冷凍空調月刊，第36期：頁39-60。
9. 華創車電(2010)，車載資訊系統設計與研發，http://www.haitec.com.tw/tc/auto/engineering/chassis.aspx。
10. 江守山(2011)，關窗吹冷氣 車內空氣更糟，聯合晚報。
英文部分：
1. Robert L. Solso (1933) Cognitive psychology, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
2. Koffka (1935) Principles of Gestalt psychology, New York.
3. Rosch, E. (1973) Natural categories, Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328-350.
4. Norman, D. A., Bobrow, D. G. (1975) on data-limited and resource-limited processes, Cognitive Psychology 7(1), 44-64.
5. Marr, D, Vision (1982) A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information, San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
6. Rumar, K. (1982) The Human Factor in Road Safety, Invited Paper at the 11th ARRB Conference, University of Melbourne, 23-27.
7. Bellet T., Tattegrain-Veste H (1989) A Framework for Representing Driving Knowledge, International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 3(1), 37-49.
8. Dingus, T. A., Antin J. F., Hulse M. C., & Wierwille W. W. (1989) Attention Demand Requirements of an Automobile Moving-Map Navigation System, Transportation Research Part A, 23(4), 301-315.
9. Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1990) Exercises in instructional design, Columbus, OH: Merrill. Fine set of practice activities for many of the skills taught in this text.
10. Green, P. (1992) American Human Factors Research on In-Vehicle Navigation Systems, Federal Highway Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, UMTRI-92-4.
11. Donald A. Norman (1993) Things that make us smart: defending human attributes in the age of the machine, New York: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
12. Horton, W (1994) Icon Book, John Wiley & Sons Ins.
13. Jakob Nielsen (1994) Ten Usability Heuristics, http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html.
14. Green. P., Levison, W., Paelke, G., & Serafin, C. (1995) Preliminary human factors design guidelines for driver information systems, Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
15. Ambler, S. W. (1998) Building Object Applications That Work: Your Step By Step Handbook for Developing Robust Systems with Object Technology, New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Constantine, L. L., & Lockwood, L. A. D. (1999) Software for Use: A Practical Guide to the Models and Methods of Usage-Centered Design, New York: ACM Press.
17. Carroll, J. M. (2000) Making Use: Scenario-Based Design, New York, NY: Wiley.
18. Page-Jones, M. (2000) Fundamentals of Object-Oriented Design in UML, New York: Dorset-House.
19. Wickens, C. D., and Hollands, J. G. (2000) Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.), NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
20. Comunicar (2003) Final report, COmmunication Multimedia Unit inside CAR, ST–1999-11595.
21. Campbell, J. L., Richman, J. B., Carney, C., and Lee, J. D. (2004) In-Vehicle Display Icons and Other Information Elements：Volume I, Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
22. Scott W. Ambler (2004) The Object Primer: Agile Model-Driven Development with UML 2.0, Cambridge, UK: New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Stanley, T. (2004) Hierarchical Task Analysis, http://classweb.gmu.edu/ndabbagh/Resources/Resources2/hierarchical_analysis.htm.
24. Jeff Johnson (2008) GUI Bloopers 2.0: Common User Interface Design Don’t and Dos (2nd ed.), Boston: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann.