人們經常下意識地藉由感官，蒐集生活中的各種訊息，無形中建立了龐大的資料庫，影響著我們的行為與反應。操作可見性即是泛指這些隱藏在生活周遭的訊息，人們透過視、聽、觸覺，接收這些物件所提供的訊息，並且快速地產生一連串思考與判斷，最後做出反應。將這樣的概念運用在設計中，也就是讓使用者正確無誤地解讀操作可見性，能避免使用上的挫折感或無助感，提升該項產品的正向好感；這過程之中，視覺即是人們訊息接收的主要途徑。
既然人們大多藉由視覺，來理解產品的操作與功能，而產品的複雜度會間接影響觀者的偏好，好用的產品能夠產生正向感受，則可推測影響產品吸引力的原因，是與產品所提供的訊息有所關連。本研究以認知、物理、知覺、功能操作可見性四項視覺要素，探討操作可見性與產品吸引力之關聯性，結果顯示：
1.產品的操作可見性與產品吸引力，具有相關性。
2.性別、背景的不同，不影響評斷產品吸引力程度。
3.操作可見性影響吸引力程度，當要素程度結果越高，則吸引力程度越高。

People usually collect information subconsciously by senses from daily life and a huge invisible database is created that deeply influences our behaviors and reactions. Affordance is the information that is hidden in daily life. People receive information from objects by watching, listening, and touching that prompt a series of thinking, determination and finally the reaction. Such a concept can be used in design to help users understanding affordance correctly, to avoid frustration and helplessness, as well as to increase product preference. Vision is the main channel by which people receive information in the process.
Since people understand the use and function of a product mainly by vision and product complexity affects viewers’ preference so as a useful product creates positive emotion, it is assumed that product attractiveness is associated with information provided by the product. This study explored the relationship between affordance and product attractiveness by four visible elements of cognitive, physical, sensory and functional affordance. The results were as follows.
1.There is a correlation between product affordance and product attractiveness.
2.Different genders and backgrounds do not affect the level of product attractiveness.
3.Affordance affects the level of product attractiveness. The higher the elements are, the higher the level of attractiveness.

Bally, C. & Sechehaye, A. (Eds.) (1916). Cours de linguistique generale. Paris: Payot.
Battarbee, K. & Mattelmaki, T. (2004). Meaningful product relationships. In D. McDonagh, P. Hekkert, J. van Erp, & D. Gyi (Eds.), Design and emotion: The experience of everyday things (pp. 337-341). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Baxter, M. (1995). Product design: A practical guide to systematic methods of new product development. London: CRC Press.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Verbal and exploratory responses to visual patterns varying in uncerrainry and in redundancy. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 121-158). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Brehm, J. W., Miron, A. M., & Miller, K. (2009). Affect as a motivational state. Cognition and Emotion, 23(6), 1069-1089.
Galvao, A. & Sato. K. (2005). Affordances in product architecture: Linking technical functions and users’ tasks. In Y. Jin & J. K. Gershenson (Eds.), Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology (pp. 1-11). Long Beach, CA: ASME Press.
Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In P. Bauersfeld, J. Bennett, & G. Lynch (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM CHI ’91: Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference (pp. 79-84). New York: ACM.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hartmann, J. (2006). Assessing the attractiveness of interactive systems. In G. Olson & R. Jeffries (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI ’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1755-1758). New York: ACM.
Hartson, H. R. (2003). Cognitive, physical and perceptual affordances in interaction design. Behavior and Information Technology, 22(5), 315-338.
Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products: An introduction to the new human factors. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Arkana.
Krippendorff, K. & Butter, R. (1984). Product semantics: Exploring the symbolic qualities of form. Innovation: the Journal of IDSA, 3(2), 4-9.
Krippendorff, K. (1990). Product semantics: A triangulation and four design theories. In S. Vakeva (Ed.), Product Semantics ’89: Proceedings from the Products Semantics ’89 Conference (pp. a3-a23). Helsinki: University of Industrial Arts.
Kristensen, T. & Gabrielsen, G. (2004). Emotional factors in design and their influence on purchase decisions. In D. McDonagh, P. Hekkert, J. van Erp, & D. Gyi (Eds.), Design and emotion: The experience of everyday things (pp. 147-151). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Kumar, V. (2000). International marketing research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1-55.
McGrenere, J. & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In S. S. Fels & P. Poulin (Eds.), Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000 (pp. 179-186). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nelissen, R. M. A., Dijker, A. J. M., & De Vries, N. K. (2007). Emotions and goals: Assessing relations between values and emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 21(4), 902-911
Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
Norman, D. A. (2005). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: BasicBooks.
Norman, D. A. (2010). Living with complexity. New York: BasicBooks.
Overbeeke, K. & Wensveen, S. (2003). From perception to experience, from affordances to irresistibles. In B. Hanington & J. Forlizzi, Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (pp. 92-97). New York: ACM.
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82(4), 225-260.
Sutcliffe, A. (2009). Designing for user engagement: Aesthetic and attractive user interfaces. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.
Turvey, M. T. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: An outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4, 173-187.
Vihma, S. (1995). Products as representations: A semiotic and aesthetic study of design products. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Art and Design, Helsinki, Finland.
Visch, V. (2004). Animated emotional: Human figure movement and viewer emotion. In D. McDonagh, P. Hekkert, J. van Erp, & D. Gyi (Eds.), Design and emotion: The experience of everyday things (pp. 195-199). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Warren, W. H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 683-703.
Xenakis, I., Arnellos, A., & Darzentas, J. (2012). The functional role of emotions in aesthetic judgement. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 212-226.
宋伊可（2002）。消費者對產品外觀價值感認知差異之研究—以行動電話為例。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺北科技大學創新設計研究所，臺北市。
李尹婷（2009）。建立產品「操作可見性」之線上評價模式。未出版之碩士論文，國立成功大學工業設計學系碩士班，臺南市。
林傑斌、林川雄、馮兆康（2011）。SPSS統計分析與實務。臺北市：博碩。
後藤武、佐佐木正人、深澤直人（2008）。不為設計而設計＝最好的設計：生態學的設計論（デザインの生態学－新しいデザインの教科書）（黃友玫譯）。臺北市：漫遊者文化。（原作2004年出版）
范惟翔（2011）。市場調查與專題研究實務。新北市：京峯數位。
張春興（1995）。現代心理學。臺北市：東華書局
游曉貞（1997）。設計的認知工程－淺談認知科學大師唐納．諾曼之設計原則。工業設計，26（2），82-91。
黃梓育（2005）。產品視覺複雜度對消費者喜好關係之探討。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣科技大學工商業設計系碩士班，臺北市。
鄭昭明（1993）。認知心理學－理論與實踐。臺北市：桂冠。
蕭文龍（2009）。多變量分析最佳入門實用書（二版）。臺北市：碁峰。
顏惠芸（2014）。文創商品之感質特性探討。感性學報，2（1），34-61。