不同的設計手法能讓產品產生差異化，達到既具美感又富有創新的視覺感官，並獲得市場上較高的喜好度。有鑑於此，本研究將參考平面廣告修辭論述，針對「產品視覺修辭手法」作為發展與探討重點，並提供設計師在設計實務上的參考。本研究共歸納出以下四項結論：
(1)平面廣告之視覺修辭結構「A+B」的研究結果將可以運用於產品設計範疇，總共包含有「融合」、「並置」、「替代」、「表皮」等四種基本的「A+B」修辭手法；另外又可以延伸發展出「融合+並置」、「融合+表皮」、「並置+替代」等視覺感官混和的「A+B」雙修辭手法。
(2)本研究四種產品視覺修辭結構「A+B」與「矛盾語意」的研究結果存在關聯，又以「替代」手法創造出「矛盾語意(既典型又獨特)」；「表皮」手法創造出「語意模糊(不典型也不獨特)」。
(3)本研究四種「產品視覺修辭手法」可以產生美感，又以「替代」手法具備「矛盾語意」特性，引發中度新奇與高度美感；「融合」手法雖然無法創造「矛盾語意」，但卻異常可引發高度美感，並具備高度新奇的特質，但其產品實用性明顯極低，屬於藝術形式的表現手法；「融合+並置」與「融合+表皮」等以「融合」為主，「它類」為輔的視覺雙修辭手法，除了保有「融合」高度新奇的特性外，特別的是更貼近了現實產品，其實用性極高，視為成功的造形創作手法。
(4)「理解性」與「實用性」可能極端的影響「美感」與「新奇」，代表著理解性與實用性的增加能正向引發高度美感，但卻反向降低了新奇度，因此設計師必須思考如何在理性規範中，讓產品擁有良好的實用性，引發美感同時，又能將納入情感思維使其具備的愉悅性，創造附加新奇價值。

Firms today use different design techniques to improve products. Design technique has influence on product differentiation, satisfy both aesthetic and innovative of visual senses, and increase customer satisfaction. Visual rhetoric is one of design techniques in advertising area. But few studies have systematically examined visual rhetoric in relation to product appearance. Given the importance of visual rhetoric, this study aims to discuss visual rhetoric in product appearance. We believe this study provides several implications for both research and practice.
This study summarize the results below:
(1)There are four types of visual rhetoric in advertising area: juxtaposition, fusion, replacement and surface. These four types of visual rhetoric also have a positive influence on product appearance in this study. Furthermore, we use "A+B" method to mix different types of visual rhetoric, such as "Fusion + Juxtaposition", "Fusion + Surface" or "Juxtaposition + Replacement".
(2)This study demonstrated that mixed visual rhetoric of four types of visual rhetoric in product design is associated with contradictory semantics. Moreover, replacement technique develop into contradictory semantics (both typical and unique) , and surface technique develop into semantics ambiguity(neither typical nor unique)".
(3)In this study, four types of visual rhetoric in product design generate aesthetics. Replacement technique has contradictory semantics feature cause middle novelty and high aesthetic. Though fusion technique doesn’t have contradictory semantics feature, it causes high aesthetic absolutely, and it has high novelty feature. Because of the poor functionality, fusion technique used for art only. Double visual rhetoric of fusion, such as "Fusion + Juxtaposition " mix and "Fusion + Surface" mix focus on fusion, other visual rhetoric techniques are auxiliary. It not only preserves high novelty of fusion but also increase functionality. It is a successful design technique.
(4)Understanding and functionality possibly have a significant effect on aesthetic and novelty. This means that understanding and functionality have a positive influence on aesthetic, but have a negative influence on novelty. So we suggest that designer adopt a strategy of providing functional features that address the needs of consumers, and trigger high aesthetic. Meanwhile, in order to add value to product and increase customers’ positive emotional, designer should think how to trigger novelty.

1.Roberto Verganti. (2003,2009). Design as brokering of languages: The role of designers in the innovation strategy of Italian firms.
2.Butter, R. (1989). The practical side of a theory: An approach to the application of product semantics, section b. In S. Vakena (ed.), Product semantics ’89 conference. Helsinki: University of Industrial Arts Helsinki.
3.Jordan, P. 2000. Designing Pleasurable Products – An introduction to the new human factors.
4.Hung, W. K., & Chen, L. L. (2011) . Aesthetics and contradiction in product semantics. In Proceedings of the 4th IASDR Conference on Design Research [CD-ROM]. Delft, The Netherlands: TU Delft.
5.Linda M. Scott. (1994) Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric.
6.Jacob Goldenberg, & David Mazursky, & Sorin Solomon (1999). The Fundamental Templates of Quality Ads.
7.Gibbs Jr., R. W. & Bogdonovish, J. (1999). Mental imagery in interpreting poetic metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 14 (1), 37-44.
8.Barbara J. Phillips, & Edward F. McQuarrie. (2004). Beyond Visual Metaphor: A New Typology of Visual Rhetoric in Advertising.
9.Donald A. Norman, & Roberto Verganti. (2012). Incremental and radical innovation: Design research versus technology and meaning change.
10.Rampino, L. (2011). The innovation pyramid: A categorization of the innovation phenomenon in the product-design field. International Journal of Design, 5(1), 3-16.
11.Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & van Wieringen, P. C. W. (2003). Most advanced, yet acceptable: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 111-124.
12.Tjalve, E., 1979, A Short Course in Industrial Design, Butterworth & Co Ltd, pp.143~168.
13.洪偉肯(2010)。 如何量測產品的矛盾語意。設計學報，15(4)。
14.洪偉肯(2010)。 矛盾語意與跨領域研究。國立台灣科技大學設計研究所博士論文，台北。
15.吳岳剛(2007)。 初探隱喻廣告中隱喻與表現形式的效果。藝術學報。
16.曾懷德(2003)。 產品造形形變於情感意象空間之探討—以椅子造型為例。國立 台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文，台北。
17.蕭坤安(2005)。 造形形變於產品造形情感意象上的探討—以壺類產品為例。設 計學報，10(3)。
18.蕭坤安(2006)。 產品造形意象的認知探討。國立台灣科技大學設計研究所博士 論文，台北。
19.吳田瑜(2009)。 影響消費者愉悅情感之產品造形探討。國立台灣科技大學設計 研究所博士論文，台北。
20.莊明振(2004)。 產品形態特徵與構成關係影響消費者感性評價之研究─以水壺的設計為例。設計學報。