近年來隨著科技的發展，國防實力不斷增長，各式戰機進行升級，機體性能、武器系統、雷達追蹤日益精進，但操作模式上仍舊維持傳統模式，其中以故障排除最為迫切需要改進，不良的故障排除流程將增添飛行困難與飛安風險。本研究將以飛行員為中心設計為原則，改良現役主力戰機之故障排除流程，在人員可維持現有飛行習慣，不另行接受換機訓練的前提下，增進故障排除流程之工作效率，以提升作戰效能。
本研究招募12位專業飛行員，進行傳統故障排除流程與直覺式介面故障排除流程兩者間效率之差異與主觀心理評價。實驗流程為計時前述兩者完整故障排除之操作時間，探討兩者間效率之差異。實驗完成後透過心理評價問卷填寫，進行心理感受之分析，期望能提升故障排除成效、操作滿意度與降低使用者心理壓力。
透過研究可發現，本研究所設計的直覺式介面故障排除操作滿意度經SUS易用性評分均值為82.3分B級，易用性程度高。且直覺式介面故障排除成效（平均秒數：254.793秒）較傳統式故障排除成效（平均秒數：267.973秒）佳，使用上效率平均快了13.18秒（5.2%）。直覺式介面故障排除設計也能有效降低飛行員操作當下的心理壓力（直覺式介面故障排除效率心理評價分數（平均分數4.6）優於傳統式故障排除心理評價分數(平均分數-4.25)。

In recent years, national defense capabilities have continued to grow. However, the traditional mode of operation is still maintained, and troubleshooting is the most urgent improvement. Poor troubleshooting procedures will increase flight difficulties and flight safety risks. This research will take the pilot-centered design as the principle to improve the troubleshooting process of the main fighters in active service. Under the premise that the personnel can maintain their existing flying habits, the work efficiency of the troubleshooting process will be improved to enhance combat effectiveness. This research will recruit active air force pilots to perform the difference in work efficiency and subjective psychological evaluation between traditional and intuitive interface troubleshooting. The experiment is to simulate the time it takes for the pilot to troubleshoot when the system fails, and to explore the difference in work efficiency between the two. After the experiment, the psychological evaluation questionnaire will be filled in to analyze the psychological feelings. Through the research, the intuitive interface troubleshooting designed by this research is 82.3 points B grade by the System Usability Scale. And the intuitive interface troubleshooting effect (average number of seconds: 254.793 seconds) is better than the traditional type (average number of seconds: 267.973 seconds), and the efficiency is faster by 13.18 seconds (5.2%) on average. The intuitive interface troubleshooting design can also effectively reduce the pilot's current psychological stress during operation (the intuitive interface troubleshooting efficiency psychological evaluation score (average score 4.6) is better than the traditional type (average score -4.25).

吳統雄. (1985). 態度與行為研究的信度與效度: 理論, 應用, 反省. 民意學術專刊, 夏季號, 29-53.
潘震. (2018). 106 年「F-16 型機系統安全會議」. Retrieved from https://report.nat.gov.tw/ReportFront/PageSystem/reportFileDownload/C10700290/001.
Barbé, J., Wolff, M., & Mollard, R. (2013). Human centered design approach to integrate touch screen. in future aircraft cockpits. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 429-438). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Barshi, I., Mauro, R., Degani, A., & Loukopoulou, L. (2016). Designing flightdeck procedures. National. Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center.
Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: a “quick and dirty'usability. Usability evaluation in industry, 189 (194), 4-7.
Brooke, J. (2013). SUS: a retrospective. Journal of Usability studies, 8(2), 29-40.
Carlisle, D. (2001). Pilot stress and what to do about it. Aviation Week's Business and Commercial Aviation.
Coutts, L. V., Plant, K. L., Smith, M., Bolton, L., Parnell, K. J., Arnold, J., & Stanton, N. A. (2019). Future technology on the flight deck: assessing the use of touchscreens in vibration environments. Ergonomics, 62(2), 286-304.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Few, S. (2006). Information dashboard design: The effective visual communication of data: O'Reilly Media, Inc.
Flight Manual, F. (2003). F16C/D Blocks 50 and 52+. Retrieved from https://info.publicintelligence.net/HAF-F16.pdf
Garrett, J. J. (2010). The elements of user experience: user-centered design for the web and beyond: Pearson Education.
Greenberg, J. (2012). Comprehensive stress management. McGraw-Hill Education.
Apple.(2020).Human Interface Guidelines-Apple Developer. Retrieved from. https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/ios/user-interaction/undo-and-redo/
Kaber, D. B., Riley, J. M., & Tan, K.-W. (2002). Improved usability of aviation automation through direct manipulation and graphical user interface design. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 12(2), 153-178.
Kaminani, S., & Collins, R. (2012). Touch screen technology in flight deck, how far is it helpful? In 2012.IEEE/AIAA 31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC)(pp. 2D3-1). IEEE.
Krug, S. (2000). Don't make me think!: a common sense approach to Web usability: Pearson Education India.
Lintern, G., Waite, T., & Talleur, D. A. (1999). Functional interface design for the modern aircraft cockpit. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(3), 225-240.
Nielsen, J. (1995). 10 usability heuristics for user interface design. Nielsen Norman Group, 1(1).
Nielsen, J. (2000). Why you only need to test with 5 users. In: Useit. com Alertbox.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning: University of Illinois press.
Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1979). The open and closed question. American sociological review, 692-712.
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591-611.
Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer (Vol. 1): Sage.
Skaff, M. (2010). F-35 lightning II cockpit vision. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars-Electronic and Electrical Systems, 3(2010-01-2330), 131-140.
Svensson, E., Angelborg-Thanderez, M., Sjöberg, L., & Olsson, S. (1997). Information complexity-mental workload and performance in combat aircraft. Ergonomics, 40(3), 362-380.
Wright, D. W. (1997). Color cockpit display for aircraft systems. In: Google Patents.