本研究在透過專家指標與使用者滿意度指標，瞭解運動生理學網站之內容與使用現況，並探討網站改版前後專家與使用者滿意度的差異情形。本研究採用的專家指標參考林文琦(2002)研究加以修改而成，包括內容品質（適切性、正確性、可信度、吸引性、更新速度、主題學術性）、介面設計（版面編排與美化效果、介面設計便利性、連結品質、使用者與網站的互動性、學習輔助工具）以及社群機制（會員機制、運動生理週訊電子報、網聚活動、提供資訊下載）三個架構。以運動生理學專家（7位）與網路教學專家（3位）共10位進行網站評鑑，並且依據專家評鑑的結果進行網站改版，改版後再進行一次專家評鑑。使用者滿意度指標問卷亦依據專家指標架構進行設計，並採用線上問卷的方式，以網站會員（2,401位）為對象，前測回收有效問卷共464份，改版後後測回收有效問卷320份。在改版前後，專家與使用者在內容品質、介面設計與社群機制上的滿意度皆呈現顯著進步；專家對內容品質的滿意度顯著高於使用者，但是在介面設計與社群機制的滿意度則無差異。依據專家指標進行運動生理學網站改版，確實能提升使用者滿意度。專家與使用者在網站內容品質給分的差異，顯示網站的改版應整合專家與使用者意見。

This study investigated the current issues of the exercise physiology website's service quality and contents by experts’ and users' satisfaction indicators and to compare experts’ and users' satisfaction between pre- and post-website correction. The frames of experts' and users' satisfaction indicators in our study were modified by Lin (2002) which included three aspects: contents (i.e., suitability, accuracy, credibility, attraction, update and academic topics), programming (i.e., layout arrangement and prettily impression, interface design, quality of links, style of interaction, and assisted learning tools) and special functions (i.e., member's function, e-paper of exercise physiology, net foregather activity and information downloading). Seven exercise physiology experts and three network experts participated in the evaluation of the website. A users' satisfaction questionnaire was filled online, with a focus on the 2,401 members of the exercise physiology website. While making experts' and users' satisfaction indicators pre-evaluation, according to their scores and experts' suggestions, we renovated the website and its contents. After the renovation, we used the experts' and users' satisfaction indicators again to do the website post-evaluation. The scores of experts' and users' pre- and post-evaluation were used for statistical analyses. By this way, we could learn the satisfaction difference in pre- and post-website correction. The satisfaction scores of contents in experts' scores in pre- and post-evaluation and in users' scores both showed significant improvement. The experts' scores were significant higher than the users'. In programming and special functions, both experts' scores in pre- and post-evaluation and users' scores showed significant improvement. The scores in programming and special functions showed no significant difference between experts and users. Experts' and users' satisfactory evaluation showed significant improvement in contents, programming and special functions; that is, the website's correction was useful. Since experts and users made different suggestions about website evaluation, it would be biased if only one side's only one's opinions were adopted. It would therefore be better to combine both experts' and users' suggestions