圖形符號的資訊負載及其判讀績效研究__臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	圖形符號的資訊負載及其判讀績效研究
作者：	許子凡
作者(外文)：	Tzu-Fan Hsu
校院名稱：	國立臺灣科技大學
系所名稱：	設計研究所
指導教授：	林品章
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2010
主題關鍵詞：	圖形符號；資訊負載；組合模式；資訊量；判讀績效；Graphical symbol；Information load；Combination mode；Information amount；Recognition performance
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(2) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:1 共同引用:0 點閱:37

本研究從圖形符號自身之訊息組態，即資訊負載的角度切入，藉其對於正確率與反應時間等表現造成之差異，歸納出人們判讀的共同性與差異性，以做為視覺傳達設計之參考，期能提供使用者更佳的使用經驗與效能表現。
在執行的流程規劃上，本研究從文獻分析著手，歸納出類型劃分（組合模式）與等級劃分（資訊量）兩種資訊負載的操作模式，再以AIGA圖形符號系統做為刺激物之來源，經由設計背景與一般背景兩類型受測者進行判讀績效之比較，其流程共分為三個階段：（1）圖形符號的組合模式與圖像單位之類型分析。（2）從組合模式探討圖形符號的判讀正確率與反應時間。（3）從資訊量探討圖形符號的判讀正確率與反應時間。
各階段所蒐集到的數據及資料，經統計檢定與對照分析後，彙整出下述五項結論：
1.複數圖像單位所構成的圖形符號，其組合模式可分為：「指向+圖像式」、「人形+圖像式」、「符號+圖像式」、「圖像+圖像式」等四種類型；而此一類型認知，在設計背景與一般背景的族群間存在高度共同性，意味著若將組合模式之認知概念應用於視覺傳達設計時，將有助於使用者對於圖形符號的訊息判讀績效。
2.經由卡片分群的操作，顯示設計背景者與一般背景者雖擁有組合模式的認知共識，但兩族群在分群過程中仍存在著部分差異，其分別為：（1）組合模式的類型認同一致性。（2）合併過程的次集群差異。（3）刺激物分派結果不同的歸類差異。
3.不同組合模式圖形符號所呈現的判讀績效，以「指向+圖像式」最佳，不論是正確率或反應時間均然，「人物+圖像式」次之，而「圖像+圖像式」的反應時間雖較「符號+圖像式」為佳，但兩者在正確率表現上卻無明顯不同，顯示圖形符號組合模式對於人們的判讀績效，確屬一重要之影響變數。
4.低資訊量等級的圖形符號，其正確率與反應時間的表現均較高資訊量等級為佳，意味著資訊量的提升，雖可傳遞更多資訊，但對於人們的判讀績效不一定會有正面助益，而從圖形符號組合模式的觀點，則可解釋為因單一圖像單位與複數圖像單位兩種組合模式的類型，對於其判讀績效所造成之差異。
5.設計背景者在判讀正確率的表現上較一般背景者為佳，而反應時間上則未有顯著之差異，其常見的錯誤情況可歸納為：（1）圖像單位辨識錯誤。（2）圖像單位間共同概念之聯想失敗。（3）圖像單位間關係的推論偏移等三種。故在視覺傳達設計中若能將上述因素加入考量，將有助於人們判讀績效的提升。

以文找文

Based on the aspect of information load, this study evaluated the recognition performance of graphical symbol in terms of accuracy ratio and response time in order to explore the recognition commonality and differentiation between the people with different educational backgrounds.
To build the fundamental theory of experiment, this study conducted literature reviews with related research fields, utilizing the AIGA pictograms system as source template, and divided the operational methods of information load into: classification by category, that is combination mode, and classification by level, that is information amount. The whole experiment was preceded in three phases: (1) Classifying the combination modes of graphical symbol and the types of symbol objects; (2) Evaluating the recognition performance among combination modes and educational backgrounds; (3) Evaluating the recognition performance between information load levels and educational backgrounds.
The findings may provide references for visual communication, and enable designers to enhance users’ performance and experience in the recognition of graphical symbols. The results obtained by the study are as followed.
1.The combination modes of graphical symbols are categorized into: “direction + icon”, “human + icon”, “symbol + icon”, and “icon + icon”. A high commonality exists in the categorized result between people with different educational backgrounds, showing a support to improve the recognition performance by applying its concept in visual communication.
2.From the angle of card sorting manipulation, the design group and the general group had the common clustering results; however, the slight differences still existed in the clustering process between them, which were: (1) agreement difference; (2) assignment difference; and (3) sub-cluster difference.
3.Under the same design quality, “direction + icon” showed the best recognition performance in terms of accuracy ratio and response time, followed by “human + icon”. “icon + icon” performed better than “sign + icon” in response time, but the difference in accuracy ratio was insignificant. It was determined that the combination mode was an effective variable for recognition.
4.The information amount of graphical symbol was measured by information theory. The graphical symbol with low information load was better for effectiveness and efficiency. Although high information load might have a benefit of message amount, it was not necessarily positive about the recognition performance.
5.People with design background perform better than those with general background in accuracy ratio; however, there are no significant differences shown in response time. The errors are classified into three types: mistaken icon identity; (2) deviation of inference; (3) failure in generalizing the common concept among icons. To lessen the difference and improve the performance, these recognition commonalities should be considered in design thinking.

以文找文

一、中文部分
王明嘉（1995）。探究視覺宇宙的脈搏 ─ 視覺語法。藝術家，241，460。
邱皓政（2006）。量化研究與統計分析：SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析。台北：五南圖書出版公司。
李義正、連德仁（2004）。網路圖形符號之類型分析與應用研究。商業設計學報，8，213-226。 new window

李俊賢、曹壽民和張善政（1986）。道路交通標誌視覺影像之電腦模擬。電腦輔助設計研討會論文集，台灣大學。
林原宏（1996）。知識結構分析－徑路搜尋、多向度量尺和集群分析的方法論探討。測驗統計年刊，4，47-69。 new window

姚朝茂（2005）。政府機關標誌造形意象認知之研究。銘傳大學設計管理研究所碩士論文，桃園。
馬敏元、黃璟松、趙家佑（2006）。以資訊質量概念探討中文字元複雜感與難易感之研究，中華民國設計學會第十一屆全國學術研討會論文集，東海大學。
許子凡、林品章（2008）。認知風格對不同資訊量的判讀效率與模式特徵：以AIGA圖形符號為例。設計學研究，11（1），87-105。 new window

許子凡、林品章和楊朝明（2008）。圖像單元之類型分析研究，2008文化創新與設計發展國際學術研討會，中原大學。
許峻誠、王韋堯（2009）。學習背景差異對簡化圖形之偏好研究。藝術教育研究，17，109~132。 new window

黃俊英（2003）。多變量分析，台北：中國經濟企業研究所。
陳瀚凱、管倖生（2007）以信息熵理論探討視覺特徵信息對審美性與注目性之影響－以海報設計為例，設計學報，12（2），53-70。 new window

廖崇仁（1997）。訊息接收者視覺符號的形象辨識研究，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文，新竹。
羅凱、林品章（2007）。高品牌價值之品牌識別設計傾向研究。設計學報，10（1），47-68。 new window

蘇大典（2000）。台灣地區證明標章造形認知研究，國立雲林科技大學視覺傳達設計研究所碩士論文，雲林。

二、英文部分
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
Biederman, I., & Ju, G. (1998). Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 38-64.
Biggs, S. F., Bedard, J. C., Gaber, B. G., & Linsmeier, T. J. (1985). The effects of task size and similarity on the decision behavior of bank loan offices. Management Science, 31, 970-987.
Brugger C. (1990). Advances in the international standardization of public information symbols. Information Design Journal, 6(1), 79-88.
Cairney, P., & Sless, D. (1982). Communication effectiveness of symbolic safety signs with different user groups. Applied Ergonomics, 13(2), 91-97.
Catarci, T. (1999). Web-based information access. Paper presented at the 4th IFCIS International Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Ching, F., & Juroszek, S. P. (1998). Design Drawing. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Coates, D. (2003). Watches tell more than time: Product design, information, and the quest for elegance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Collin, B. L., & Lerner, N. D. (1982). Assessment of fire-safety symbols. Human Factors, 24(1), 75-84.
Chuang, Y. L. & Chen, L. L. Computer Aided Kansei Engineering with XML Technology. Retrived April 15, 2008, from http://
www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauterberg/conferences/
CD_doNotOpen/ADC/final_paper/514.pdf
DuBay, W. H. (2006). Smart language: Readers, readability, and the grading of text. Costa Mesa: Impact Information.
Eysenck, M. W. (2001). Principles of cognitive psychology (2nd ed.). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Foster, J. J. (1994). Evaluating the effectiveness of public information symbols. Information Design Journal, 7(3), 183-202.
Gaffney, G. (2000). What is card sorting? Retrived October 20, 2008, from http://www.infodesign.com.au/usabilityresources/design/cardsorting.asp
Glennen, S. L., & DeCoste, D. C. (1997). The handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. San Diego, CA: Singular.
Gordon, D. A. (1981). Assessment of guide sign informational load. Human Factors, 23(4), 453-466.
Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11-26.
Helbing, K. G., Jenkins, J., Kim Y. S., & Miller, M. E. (1993). Influence of icon detail, color, and perspective on preference, recognition time, and search time. Retrived May 19, 2008, from http://www.frontiernet.net/
~mkmiller/Prof/Icons/icon.htm
Horton, W. (1994). The icon book. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Huang, J. S., & Ma, M. Y. (2007). A study on the cognition of complexity and difficulty of Chinese characters when reading and recognizing. Displays, 28, 8-25.
Jacoby, J., Speller, D. E., & Berning, C. K. (1974). Brand choice behavior as a function of information load. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 63-69.
Jacoby, J. (1984). Perspectives on information overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 432-435.
Katov, M., Nomura N., & Ito, K. (2003). The visual information load as a parameter for designing pleasurable environment. Paper presented at the 2003 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces.
Keller, K. L., & Staelin, R. (1987). Effects of quality and quantity of information on decision effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 200-213.
Kinross, R. (1981). On the influence of Isotype. Information Design Journal, 2(2), 122–130.
Knapp, B. G. (1984). Scaling military symbols: a comparison of techniques to derive associative meaning. Paper presented at the Human Factors Society 29th Annual Meeting.
Lee, B. K., & Lee, W. N. (2004). The effect of information overload on consumer choice quality in an on-line environment. Psychology and Marketing, 21(3), 159-183.
Liu, Y. C. (2005). A simulated study on the effects of information volume on traffic signs, viewing strategies and sign familiarity upon driver’s visual search performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35, 1147-1158.
Lurie, N. H. (2004). Decision marking in information rich environments: the role of information structure. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 473-487.
Maharaj, S. C. (1980). Pictogram Ideogram communication. Refina, Canada: The George Reed Foundation for the Handicapped.
Marcus, A. (2003). Icons, symbols, and signs: Visible languages to facilitate communication. Interactions, may+june 2003, 37-43.
Norusis, M. J. (2002). SPSS 11.0 guide to data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Meggs, P. B. (1998). A history of graphic design (3 Ed.). NewYork: Thames And Hudson.
Namba, S. (1983). Study on the amount of information in a still-picture and the display time required. NHK Technical Journal, 33(163), Tokyo: NHK Technical Research Lab.
Peirce, C. S. (1932). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Plessis, E. D. (1994). Recognition versus recall. Journal of Advertising Research, 34, 75-91.
Procotr, R. W., & Zandt, T. V. (1994). Human factors in simple and complex systems. Needham Heights: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Conitive Psychology, 4, 328-350.
Ryan, T. A., & Schwartz, C. B. (1956). Speed of perception as a function of mode of representation. The American Journal of Psychology, 69, 60-69.
Salasoo, A. (1990). Towards usable icon sets: a case study from telecommunications engineering. Paper presented at the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting.
Scammon, D. L. (1977). Information load and consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 148-155.
Seinfeld, J. H., & Pandis, S. N. (2006). Atmospheric chemistry and physics - From air pollution to climate change (2nd Ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Settle, R. B., & Golden, L. L. (1974). Attribution theory and advertiser credibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 181-185.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). The mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423, 623–656.
Solso, R. L. (1991). Cognitive psychology (3th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Stammers, R. B., & Hoffman, J. (1991). Transfer between icon sets and ratings of icon concreteness and appropriateness. Paper presented at the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting
Tracy, W. (1988). The typographic scene. London: Gordon Fraser.
Tullis, T., & Wood, L. How many users are enough for a card-sorting study? Retrived Decenber 20, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/
20040719.html
Vora, P., Helander, M., Swede, H., & Wilson, J. (1991). Developing guidelines for symbol design: a comparison of evaluation methodologies. Paper presented at the Conference of Interface 1991.
Wang, R., & Hsu, C. C. (2006). Study of the design operation of graphic simplification. The Design Journal, 10(3), 54-73.
Winter, F. W. F. (1973). A laboratory experiment of individual attitude response to advertising exposure. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 130-140.
Zwaga H. J. G., & Boersema, T. (1983). Evaluation of a set of graphic symbols. Applied Ergonomics, 14(1), 43-54.
Zwaga, H. J. G., & Easterby, R. S. (1984). Developing effective symbols for public information. Information Design (pp.277-297). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Zender, M. (2006). Advancing icon design for global non verbal communication: or what does the word bow mean? Visible Language, 40(2), 177-206.

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	文化創意商品之設計策略探討--以茶具商品為例
2.	扁平化設計在手機介面圖像之辨識率研究
3.	永續設計研究的議題類別與階段時期之關聯分析
4.	虛擬博物館在使用性因子與設計內容分析上之研究
5.	符號元素數量對幼兒園發展遲緩兒童及其同儕動詞圖形符號辨識效果之研究
6.	動態網頁在審美性因子與設計內容分析上之研究
7.	動態網頁在動作風格組合上之審美性研究
8.	以眼動探討符號元素對發展遲緩幼兒及同儕溝通圖形符號辨識差異之研究
9.	中國消費者對臺灣商品包準屬性偏好研究
10.	網頁資訊圖像的表現形式與主題內容之關聯分析
11.	茶葉品牌消費符號之好感度設計研究
12.	動態網頁在美感喚起與審美性因子關係上之研究
13.	動態圖像之視覺特徵在認知性與審美性分析上之研究
14.	學習者對螢幕移動圖像之舒適度及視知覺偏好研究
15.	動態圖像在動作特徵與審美性因子關係上之研究

1.	圖像風格對人類情緒的影響
2.	動態訊息之感知性與審美性研究
3.	文圖轉碼認知歷程對分鏡景別鏡位表現的影響
4.	多量警告圖像的識認效用
5.	螢幕圖像傳達之視知覺偏好研究
6.	運動贊助與品牌意象應用於品牌認同之研究：品牌個性觀點
7.	概念構圖融入國語教學對國小五年級學童閱讀理解、大意摘要能力與語文學習態度影響之研究
8.	知識結構的評量與改變之研究─以國小學生數學文字題為例

無相關書籍

無相關著作

1.	臉部表情辨識應用於式樣化圖像評估
2.	弱者的聲音 : 環境、女人、兒童與教育學術社群
3.	兒童語言與溝通發展
4.	資訊社會中的視覺素養
5.	兒童氣質 : 基本特性與社會構成
6.	創造性戲劇之理論探討與實務研究
7.	探討銀髮族休閒活動之設計--聯合分析法之應用
8.	兒童困擾行為背後之可能意涵--兒童依附問題及其輔導
9.	資深諮商心理師從遭逢兒童青少年案主臨床困境到安頓身心之轉變歷程研究
10.	兒童負向情緒調節策略量表編製研究
11.	邊坡地錨抽樣檢測與整體風險度評估之研究
12.	體育教師性別平等增能研習課程設計之探討
13.	國小網頁視覺設計對兒童吸引力之探討
14.	從樂齡網評估高齡者網購使用脈絡
15.	雜誌版面編排設計有效傳達之研究--以Kinfolk雜誌為例

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫