近年來車用資訊娛樂系統 (In-vehicle Infotainment System, IVIS) 已成為全球汽車市場上新車的標準配備之一，提供車內的駕駛與乘客在行車過程中的資訊與娛樂內容。現今市面上的IVIS有多種類型，不同類型的硬體設備、介面之操作模式皆不盡相同，也就是說，不須額外學習如何操作、整體具有一致性的 IVIS 對於駕駛而言，能降低行車過程中因注意力分散而產生的危險。本研究目的旨在以音樂串流應用程式在IVIS中之介面為研究主體，透過實驗法、訪談法以了解介面保留手機版應用程式之介面元素與否以及不同的介面選單形式對於易用程度與操作效率之影響，進而由實驗與訪談之結果提出未來相關介面設計時的建議。
本研究之實驗可分為兩個階段，分別為：(1)前導性實驗選取目前市場上主流之2 種IVIS系統與 3 款音樂串流應用程式作為實驗樣本，並採用2（IVIS）× 3（音樂串流應用程式）雙因子受測者間之實驗設計，透過操作績效分析、觀察與受測者訪談了解現行IVIS環境下音樂串流應用程式介面使用上的差異性；(2)驗證實驗參考前導性實驗之結論，以設計出能有效減少操作時轉移注意力時間長度與學習成本之介面為核心目標，驗證實驗以2種手機版音樂串流應用程式之介面元素 ( 保留 / 無 ) 與3種介面選單呈現形式 ( 清單式 / 圖像式 / 混合式 )的呈現，設計六種模擬介面，並採用2（手機版介面元素）× 3（介面選單形式）雙因子受測者間實驗設計，以介面樣本操作績效、使用者互動滿意度問卷、系統使用性尺度量表與半結構式訪談之分析探討受測者在操作時的使用性差異。
經由驗證實驗後得出以下結果：(1)保留手機版介面元素之實驗樣本的平均操作績效在任務3、任務5與任務6中明顯地較無手機版介面元素之實驗樣本的平均操作績效佳；(2)在任務2中，手機版介面元素與介面選單形式兩個自變項之間有顯著的交互作用；(3)各項操作任務中，不同的介面選單型式之平均操作績效皆無顯著的差異；(4)使用者互動滿意度問卷中各類別問項之計分加總在各實驗樣本間並無顯著差異，同時也無顯著的交互作用；(5)保留手機版介面元素之實驗樣本的平均系統使用性評分明顯地較無手機版介面元素之實驗樣本的平均系統使用性評分高。
綜合前導性實驗與驗證實驗所得之結果，本研究最終提出以下對IVIS中音樂串流應用程式介面之設計建議：(1) IVIS中之音樂串流應用程式介面應保留部分手機版介面元素；(2)介面之選單形式應提供使用者可切換之選擇；(3)車輛行駛中選單之內容應盡可能地精簡，僅在駐車時提供完整內容；(4)在一鍵快速播放選項中提供使用者可自訂欲顯示播放清單之功能；(5)歌曲播放頁面中應盡可能地精簡可使用之按鍵圖示，並呈現於同一畫面。

In recent years, the in-vehicle infotainment systems (IVIS) have become a standard feature in new cars for the global automotive market, providing drivers and passengers with information and entertainment content during driving. There are various types of IVIS on the market today, with different types of hardware and interface operation modes, meaning that a consistent IVIS that does not require additional learning and operation can reduce the danger of distraction for drivers during driving. The purpose of this study is to examine the user interface of music streaming applications in IVIS. Through experimental methods and interviews, the study aims to investigate the impact of retaining mobile application interface elements and different interface menu formats on interface usability and operational efficiency. The findings from the experiments and interviews will be used to provide recommendations for future interface design in related contexts.
This study consists of two stages: (1) a pilot experiment that selects two mainstream IVIS systems and three music streaming applications on the market as experimental samples, and adopts a 2 (IVIS) × 3 (music streaming application) between-subjects experimental design to analyze the differences in music streaming application interfaces in the current IVIS environment through operation performance analysis, observation, and interviews; (2) a verification experiment that validates the findings of the pilot experiment and designs user interfaces that effectively reduce the length of attention transfer time and learning costs during operation. The verification experiment creates 6 simulated interface prototypes, using a 2 (mobile interface elements) × 3 (interface menu forms) between-subjects experimental design to analyze differences in user perceptions through interface prototypes operation performance, Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction, System Usability Scale, and semi-structured interviews.
The following results were obtained through the validation experiment: (1) The average task performance of the experimental samples with retained mobile interface elements was significantly better in task 3, task 5, and task 6 compared to the experimental samples without mobile interface elements. (2) In task 2, there was a significant interaction between the variables of mobile interface elements and interface menu forms. (3) There was no significant difference in the average task performance among different interface menu formats for each task. (4) The total scores of various categories in the Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction showed no significant differences among the experimental prototypes and significant interaction effect. (5) The average system usability scores of the experimental samples with retained mobile interface elements were higher than those without mobile interface elements.
Based on the results of the pilot and verification experiments, this study proposes the following design recommendations for the music streaming application interface in IVIS: (1) the music streaming application interface in IVIS should retain some of the mobile interface elements; (2) the menu form of the interface should provide users with a choice to switch; (3) the content of the menu while driving should be as concise as possible, providing complete content only when parking; (4) a user-customizable playlist display option should be provided in the one-click quick play option; (5) the icons of the usable buttons on the song playback page should be as concise as possible and displayed on the same screen.

1. Apple. (n.d.). Apple Human Interface Guidelines - Carplay - Audio Apps. Apple. Retrieved April 20, 2022 from https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/carplay/overview/audio-apps/
2. Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies archive, 4, 114-123.
3. Barfield, L. (1993). The User Interface: Concepts & Design. Addison-Wesley.
4. Brooke, J. (1995). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189, 4-7.
5. Card, S. K., Newell, A., & Moran, T. P. (1983). The Psychology of Human-computer Interaction. L. Erlbaum Associates. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=lt9QAAAAMAAJ
6. Carsten, O., Martens, M.H. (2019). How can humans understand their automated cars? HMI principles, problems and solutions. Cognition, Technology & Work, 21(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0484-0
7. Chin, J. P., Diehl, V. A., & Norman, K. L. (1988). Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Washington, D.C., USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/57167.57203
8. Fuller, J. A., Hubener, L., Kim, Y.-S., & Lee, J. H. (2016). Elucidating User Behavior in Music Services Through Persona and Gender. International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference.
9. Götting, M. C. (2023). Subscriber share of music streaming services worldwide Q2 2022. Statista. Retrieved Feburary 24, 2023 from https://www.statista.com/statistics/653926/music-streaming-service-subscriber-share/
10. Galitz, W. O. (2007). The Essential Guide to User Interface Design: An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques (3 ed.). John Wiley & Sons. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=Q3Xp_Awu49sC
11. Germain, T. (2022, 2022/04/06). Best Music Streaming Services : How to choose among Apple Music, Spotify, Pandora, Tidal, and more. Consumer Reports. https://www.consumerreports.org/best-music-streaming-service-for-you-a2126039193/
12. Google. (2020). Google Design for Driving foundations. Retrieved April 20, 2022 from https://developers.google.com/cars/design/design-foundations
13. Google. (n.d.). Android Auto. Retrieved May 18, 2022 from https://www.android.com/intl/zh-TW_tw/auto/#next-steps
14. Hagen, A. N. (2016). Music Streaming the Everyday Life. In R. Nowak & A. Whelan (Eds.), Networked Music Cultures: Contemporary Approaches, Emerging Issues (pp. 227-245). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58290-4_14
15. Hewett, T. T., Baecker, R.M., Card, S.K., Carey, T.T., Gasen, J.B., Mantei, M.M., Perlman, G., Strong, G.W., & Verplank, W.L. (1992). ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction (0897914740).
16. Kantowitz, B. H., & Sorkin, R. D. (1983). Human Factors: Understanding People-System Relationships.
17. Kim, J., Nam, C., & Ryu, M. H. (2017). What do consumers prefer for music streaming services?: A comparative study between Korea and US. Telecommunications Policy, 41(4), 263-272. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.01.008
18. Meixner, G., Häcker, C., Decker, B., Gerlach, S., Hess, A., Holl, K., Klaus, A., Lüddecke, D., Mauser, D., Orfgen, M., Poguntke, M., Walter, N., & Zhang, R. (2017). Retrospective and Future Automotive Infotainment Systems—100 Years of User Interface Evolution. In G. Meixner & C. Müller (Eds.), Automotive User Interfaces: Creating Interactive Experiences in the Car (pp. 3-53). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49448-7_1
19. Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-052029-2.50009-7
20. Nielsen, J. (1999). Designing Web Usability : The Practice of Simplicity (1 ed.). New Riders Publishing.
21. Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, Washington, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281
22. Norman, D. A. (1987). Some observations on mental models. In Human-computer interaction: a multidisciplinary approach (pp. 241–244). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
23. Norman, D. A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=OlNSRAAACAAJ
24. Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books.
25. Pauzié, A. (2008). A method to assess the driver mental workload: the Driving Activity Load Index (DALI). IET Intelligent Transport Systems, Vol 2, 315-322.
26. Regan, M. A., Hallett, C., & Gordon, C. P. (2011). Driver distraction and driver inattention: Definition, relationship and taxonomy. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(5), 1771-1781. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.008
27. Reimer, J. (2005). A History of the GUI. Ars Technica, 5, 1-17.
28. Stone, D., Jarrett, C., Woodroffe, M., & Minocha, S. (2005). User Interface Design and Evaluation (1 ed.). Elsevier Science. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=VvSoyqPBPbMC
29. Strayer, D. L., Cooper, J. M., McCarty, M. M., Getty, D. J., Wheatley, C. L., Motzkus, C. J., Goethe, R. M., Biondi, F., & Horrey, W. J. (2019). Visual and Cognitive Demands of CarPlay, Android Auto, and Five Native Infotainment Systems. Human Factors, 61(8), 1371-1386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819836575
30. Thomes, T. P. (2013). An economic analysis of online streaming music services. Information Economics and Policy, 25(2), 81-91. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2013.04.001
31. Yayici, E. (2014). UX Design and Usability Mentor Book: With Best Practice Business Analysis and User Interface Design Tips and Techniques. Emrah Yayici. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=_1vGoAEACAAJ
32. 文化內容策進會 (2021)。台灣文化內容消費趨勢調查。上網日期：2023年6月27日。網址：https://taicca.tw/article/80ee6ce1
33. 陳建雄 (2012)。智慧型手機影音播放功能之使用者介面設計開發。中國工程師學會會刊，85(6)，56-66。
34. 楊凱鳴、李來春 (2012)。探討智慧型手機手勢操作與使用者認知差異。文化創意產業研究學報，2(2)，159-174。 https://doi.org/10.6639/jccir.201206_2(2).0003
35. 劉鴻諺 (2015)。車用資訊娛樂系統觸控介面設計使用性評估。[碩士論文，東海大學]。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
36. Carlsson, S., & Leijonhufvud, J. (2021) 。聲入Spotify：瑞典小新創如何顛覆音樂產業商業模式，改變人們收聽習慣？ [李其融譯，第1版]。日月文化。 (原著出版年：2019)