電子睡眠日誌作為針對失眠患者開發的治療輔助產品，選擇觸控式螢幕為使用者介面，將紙本睡眠日誌透過數位化，提升睡眠日誌的記錄效率。儘管目前尚無針對觸控式螢幕的運用提出使用性設計原則，然而緣起於生態學觀點並擴展至認知心理學的預示性（Affordance）理論被運用於產品的使用性設計上，其中Hartson（2003）更進一步將之劃分為四種訊息並運用於設計與使用性測試。研究者認為無論人機互動的形態如何演變，終究為生態行為並牽涉於認知心理層面，預示性具有延伸運用在觸控式螢幕使用性的依據。
本研究以預示性為設計原則提出電子睡眠日誌的介面設計，並規劃包含睡前記錄與睡醒記錄的實驗任務，比較電子與紙本睡眠日誌的優劣。實驗結果發現減少操作階層將使電子睡眠日誌更具操作優勢。此外以預示性為使用性評估原則的主要結果如下：1) 介面的使用性問題主要浮現於圖像或輔助文字等認知層面，受測者除了因為受到不常接觸到的詞彙所疑惑外，對於「動態」與「狀態」等屬於抽象意涵的內容也無法聯想到正確的功能；2) 功能的預示性受到認知的預示性與感官的預示性影響較深，如圖像意涵不明時或者視覺呈現不佳時，即受到影響；3) 除了認知層面的圖像意涵影響受測者的判斷外，感官的預示性因素亦影響受測者對於訊息傳達的接收；4) 本研究運用實體的預示性的層面並不多，互動行為以點擊為主，因此出現的問題最少。
針對四種預示性運用於觸控式螢幕的主要討論如下：1) 認知與實體的預示性運用的界線已趨於模糊，圖像本身是功能說明亦是按鍵操作；2) 可透過類比的視覺模擬出實體操作的模式，但實體的預示性是受到硬體的技術限制最深的層面；3) 如Hartson（2004）所言，感官的預示性其重要性不亞於認知與實體的預示性；4) 功能的預示性由其它三種預示性所構成，假使其它預示性種類無達到理想的效果，將影響判別此物品或介面的功能。總之預示性的運用除了用於評估產品的使用性外，更可作為設計師於設計過程中思考架構之準則，以面面俱到地顧全到每個環節。

Electronic Sleep Diary developed to aid the treatment for the insomnia patients digitizes the traditional sleep diary to improve the effect of record of sleep diary through the touch-panel. Although there is no design principle of usability to direct against the application of touch-panel, affordance originated from ecology and extended to cognitive psychology has been applied design of usability of product. Hartson（2003）the one of the students divides an affordance into four types further and exercise in design and usability test. I myself consider although how evolves the form of human-machine interaction, it`s a kind of ecological behavior and concerns with cognitive level eventually. Therefore, there is the basis of extended application of affordance in the usability of touch-panel.
This study offers interface design of Electronic Sleep Diary by using affordance as design principle, and plans the tasks of experiment contained pre-sleep and post-sleep records to compare the electronic and traditional sleep diary. The result displays if there is less layers of operation, it would advantage the Electronic Sleep Diary. The main results of evaluation principle of usability as affordance approach are the following. 1) The problem of usability most occurs in icons or descriptive texts such as Cognitive Affordance. The participants confused from the sentence touched hardly, besides can`t associate the phrase about movement and state such as abstract contents with the exact functions. 2) Functional Affordance is affected deeply from Cognitive Affordance and Sensory Affordance, it would be influenced if the mean of icons wasn`t clear or the visual was unobvious. 3) The means of icon such as cognitive level is the cause of affecting the participants` judgment, besides the factor of Sensory Affordance influences the participants` accept for the communication of information. 4) The application in this study of Physical Affordance isn`t very much but main as the way of touch, so the occurring problem is less than the other types of affordance.
The main discussions of directing against touch-panel as affordance approach are the following. 1) The demarcation line between the applications of Cognitive and Physical Affordance trend to be indistinct, the icon is either explanation of function or button to operate. 2) The physical operation can be simulated by vision of analogy, but Physical Affordance is the most limited one of the affordances from the hardware technique. 3) The importance of Sensory Affordance isn`t second to Cognitive and Physical Affordance, as Hartson（2004）said. 4) Functional Affordance is composed of Cognitive, Physical and Sensory Affordance. If one of the effects of the affordances doesn`t reach the expected level, it would influence the determining that function of object or interface. Anyway the applications of affordances are not only used in evaluating the usability of products, but also as the principle of thinking in the design process of designer to considerate the each and every elements fully.

英文參考文獻
1. Benbunan-Fich, R. (2001). Using protocol analysis to evaluate the usability of a commercial web site. Inf. Manage, 39(2), 151-163.
2. Carroll, J. M. (1997). Scenario-based design. In M. Helander & T. K. Landauer (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd ed., pp. 383-406). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
3. Dumas, J. S. & Redish, J. C. (1993). Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pulishing Corporation.
4. Gaver, W. (1991). Technology sffordances. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Reaching through technology. New Orleans, Louisiana, United States: ACM.
5. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
6. Gomoll, K. M. (1991). Apple computer's human interface group: advanced technology group. In S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson & J. S. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM CHI 91 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference (pp. 473-474). New Orleans: Louisiana.
7. Goodwin, N. (1987). Functionality and usability. Communication of the ACM, 30(3), 229-233.
8. Hagmann, S., Mayer, K. & Nenniger, P. (1997). Using structrual theory to make a word-processing manual more understandable. Lerning and Instruction, 8, 19-35.
9. Hartson, H. R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour and Information Technology, 22(5), 315-338.
10. Henderson, R. D., Smith, M. C., Podd, J. & Valera-Alvarez, H. (1995). A comparison of the four prominent user-based methods for evaluating the usability of computer softaware. Ergonomics, 38(10) , 2030-2040.
11. Jordan, P. W. (1995). An Introduction to Usability. London: Taylor and Francis.
12. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we Live. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
13. McGrenere, J. & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: clarifying and evolving a concept. Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000 (pp.179-186). Montreal, Canada.
14. Nancy, S. & Norcio, A. F. (1993). Mental models: concepts for human-computer interaction research. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(4), 587-605.
15. Nardi, B. (1992). The use of scenarios in design. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 24(4), 13-14.
16. Norman, D. A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Currency.
17. Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38-43.
18. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. San Francisco: Academic.
19. Nielsen, J. (1996). Usability metrics: tracking interface improvements. IEEE Software, 13(6) , 12-13.
20. Sanders, M. S. & McCormick, E. J. (1992). Human Factors in Engineering and Design. Columbus : McGraw-Hill Book Co.
21. Tang, H.-H. & Kao, S.-A. (2005). Understanding the User’ s Model of the Elderly People While Using Mobile Phones, HCII ‘05, Ceasars Palace, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. (CD-ROM). (21-28 July 2005)
22. Verplank, W., Fulton, J., Black, A. & Moggridge, W. (1993). Observation and invention: the use of scenarios in interaction design. CHI Tutorial, ACM.
23. Waterworth, J. (1992). Multimedia Iinteraction with Computers: Human Factors Issues. New York: Ellis Horwood.

中文參考文獻
24. Burdeük , B.（1996）。工業設計-產品造形的歷史、理論及實務（胡佑宗譯）。台北市：亞太出版社。
25. Morin, C. & Espie, C.（2008）。失眠的評估與治療 : 臨床實務手册。（Insomnia : a clinical guide to assessment and treatment）（楊建銘、黃彥霖與林詩維譯）。臺北市 : 心理。（原作2003年出版）
26. Norman, D. A. (2005)。情感設計：我們為何喜歡(或討厭)日常用品(Emotional Design : Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things)(翁鵲嵐,鄭玉屏,張志傑譯)。臺北市：田園城市。(原作2005年出版)
27. Norman, D. A. (2007)。設計&日常生活：如何選擇安全好用的日常生活用品(The Design of Everyday Things)(卓耀宗譯)。台北市：遠流。(原作1998年出版)
28. Preece, J., Rogers, Y. & Sharp, H.（2006）。互動設計: 跨越人－電腦互動（Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction）（陳建雄譯）。台北市：全華圖書。（原作2002年出版）
29. 丁美月（2007)。身心舒眠使用手册：讓生命自然地「轉化」與「再生」。臺北市：姿霓國際出版。
30. 方裕民（2003）。人與物的對話:互動介面設計理論與實務。台北市：田園城市。
31. 蘇照彬（1993)。Scenario在人機互動中之理論與應用:以互動電視節目表的發展與評估為例。國立交通大學傳播科技研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
32. 梁又照（2001）。創新設計的七項原則。香港理工大學演講稿。

網路參考資料
33. 資訊架構 - 維基百科，自由的百科全書。上網日期：2009, 6, 22。網址：http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E8%B3%87%E8%A8%8A%E6%9E%B6%E6%A7%8B&variant=zh-tw