使用者與產品互動時心理認知變化及感受一直是設計界好奇的議題，例如，日本設計師深澤直人所提出「Without thought」設計哲學即是指設計師應適當地運用視覺造型符號與動作符號於產品設計中，讓使用者自發性(spontaneous)的與產品進行互動(後藤武、佐佐木正人、深澤直人，2008)，在互動過程中體會該產品所蘊含的意義。本研究希望從三種不同互動層次，包括圖片觀察、實體操作、概念說明與實體操作三種方式切入，瞭解產品如何影響使用者的使用者感受，包含理解程度、美感偏好、驚奇程度及對於產品的認同程度。經過本次以實體產品為實驗刺激物的研究後得到以下六點結論。
1.互動層次提升能幫助理解產品。當設計師在展示及呈現產品時，應該考量不同的概念特質。必要時應以實際操作或對概念作充分說明讓使用者感知到足夠的線索，以確保使用者理解產品的概念。
2.對於產品理解程度與認同程度呈現線性正相關。使用者在判斷對於產品之理解程度時，亦受到是否認同該產品概念的影響。
3. 理解及認同能引發美感及驚奇。使用者對於產品設計概念充分瞭解的情況下，方能感受到產品的美及驚奇。
4.中度理解高度認同能達到高驚奇及美感。討論美感偏好及驚奇程度時，互動過程中對於設計的認同程度比起理解程度更為用要。
5.對於強調互動性的產品而言，在實際操作過產品之後，由於產生不同的瞭解，認知上的落差引發了驚奇的效果。
6.在圖片階段中，使用者的認知及感受被局限於自己的猜測之中。在實際操作階段中，使用者可以感受到產品部份的概念及設計內容，引發美和驚奇的感受。但是，由於對於產品概念的不確定性，此時使用者的理解及認同與美感偏好及驚奇感受是不一致的。在實際操作及概念說明階段中，在完全確定產品概念的情況下，使用者的感受無論是在理解程度、認同程度、美感偏好及驚奇程度的反應都是一致的。

Users’ cognition development and feelings upon interacting with products have been widely discussed in the research field of design. For example, Japanese designer Naoto Fusakawa has proposed a design philosophy, Without Thought, which means that designers should make use of visual and action symbols when designing a product in order to make users interact with the product spontaneously and realize the idea behind it (Takeshi Goto, Masato Sasaki and Naoto Fukasawa, 2008). This study intends to find out how products influence users’ feelings, including realization level, aesthetic preference, surprise level, and identification level, through three different interactive aspects: perceiving pictures, using products, and using products and reading the concept of design. The researcher used physical products as stimuli and derived six conclusions as follows:
1.Raising the interaction level helped users understand the products more. When displaying a product, designers should consider different characteristics of it. In order to make sure that users completely understand the product, designers can demonstrate how to use it or explain the concept behind it.
2.The realization level appeared to be positively correlated with identification level. When users judged how much they understood the products, they also took their identification with the products into consideration.
3.Realization and identification did arouse aesthetic preference and surprise. Only when users fully understand the concept of a product can they sense its aesthetics and feel surprised.
4. The middle level of realization and the high level of identification led to a high level of surprise and aesthetic feeling. During the interaction, surprise and aesthetic feeling was more related to whether users recognized the concept of products than whether users realized the concept of products.
5.In most situations, the concept of a product was sensed when users operated the product. Thus, after operating products, users may have different thoughts of them. The different levels of recognition would cause the surprise effect.
6.In the phase of watching pictures, users’ cognition and experience were confined in their own imagination, which were widely different from designers’ initial idea. In the phase of operating products, users could realize the concept and content of most products, arousing the feeling of aesthetics and surprise. However, because of the uncertainty of the products’ concepts, users’ realization and identification level were not consistent with the sense of aesthetics and surprise. In the last phase – using the products and reading the concept of products at the same time, because users were fully informed of the concept of products, their experiences including realization level, identification level, aesthetic preference, surprise level were all consistent.

1. Verganti, R. (2003). Design as brokering of languages: Innovation strategies in Italian firms. Design Management Journal (Former Series), 14(3), 34-42.
2. Naoto Fukasawa(2009). On 'Affordance'. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from Vitra online magazine Web site: http://www.vitra.com/en-us/magazine/details/on-affordance
3. 鄧建國、莊明振(2008)：應用情感喚醒的造形聯想設計模式探討。Taiwan設計學報(Journal of Design); 卷 13, 期 3 (2008) p.81-98
4. 後藤武、佐佐木正人、深澤直人(2008)。不為設計而設計就是最好的設計-生態學的設計論(The Ecological Approach to Design) (黃友玫譯)。台北市：漫遊者文化。
5. Overbeeke, K. C. J., & Wensveen, S. A. G. (2003) From perception to experience, from affordances to irresistible. In B. Hannington & J. Forlizzi (Eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (pp. 92-97). New York: ACM Press.
6. Krippendorff, K. (1996). On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the propositions that “Design is making sense (of Things )”. Design Issues, 4(2), 9-39.
7. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
8. Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A. and Augustin, D. (2004), A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.
9. Ioannis Xenakis, Argyris Arnellos(2013), The relation between interaction aesthetics and affordances, Design Studies, Volume 34, Issue 1, 57-73,
10. Desmet, P. M. A. & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1 (1), 57-66.
11. Da Silva, O., Crilly, N., & Hekkert, P. (2013). Aesthetic appreciation of products: The effect of ideas underlying design. In K. Sugiyama (Ed.), Consilience and Innovation in Design: Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of International Association of Societies of Design Research (Vol. 2, pp. 2558–2566). Tokyo: Shibaura Institute of Technology.
12. Gibson, J.J., 1979, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company.