成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	黃信夫 Huang, Hsinfu
論文名稱：	應用一個有效的人因實驗程序方法於產品使用性測試 An Effective Ergonomics Experimental Standard Operating Procedure (EESOP) for Product Usability Testing
指導教授：	賴新喜 Lai, hsin-hsi
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：	規劃與設計學院 - 工業設計學系 Department of Industrial Design
論文出版年：	2008
畢業學年度：	96
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	116
中文關鍵詞：	人因研究、人因實驗標準作業程序(EESOP) 、有效性與效率、產品使用性、實驗標準化
外文關鍵詞：	effective and efficient, EESOP, experimental standards, product usability, Ergonomics
相關次數：	點閱：82 下載：5
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

使用性在產品上扮演一個重要的角色。因此，很多人因研究進行改善產品使用性的人因實驗，以期望這些實驗的結果可以增強產品使用性。然而，這些人因研究的實驗過程是否符合人因工作法則將是另一個值得探討的議題。本研究主要目的在於建立並應用一個有效的人因實驗程序方法來協助研究者更有效率地進行產品使用性的改善，並產生標準化的使用性實驗文件。因此，這個研究結合質性研究的方法論建立與量化研究的實驗驗證以提出改進產品使用性之人因實驗標準作業程序方法 (即EESOP)。這個程序方法的設計特徵包括：1) 結構化的實驗程序 2) 明確的使用性實驗任務3) 選擇性的決策點 4) 標準化的使用性支援文件5) 產品使用性測試的適用性。再者，為了觀察與驗證其程序過程的流暢性和有效性，本研究應用這個創新的程序方法於二個產品使用性改善的驗證實驗中。
本研究考量EESOP應用在不同類型產品上的通則化。因此，驗證實驗的主題包括一般消費性產品 (非電子產品型態)與電腦資訊介面產品 (電子產品型態)。在驗證實驗I中，透過人因實驗程序方法所得到的實驗結果明顯地且有效地呈現安全帽面罩在不同環境中使用時的視認度績效變化，並且提供使用者一個安全帽面罩產品的最適選擇。在驗證實驗II中，實驗過程在這個程序方法的輔助下，其結果中可以明確地呈現影響觸控圖示使用性的因素，並在使用性建議文件中描述觸控圖示的使用性設計方針。這些結果都有助於增強使用者對產品的使用性與滿意度。針對在實驗標準化概念下所提出的使用性改善結果，這二個提升產品使用性的驗證研究結果也通過相關科學期刊審查的考驗。這說明結合實驗標準化概念的EESOP可以有效地產出產品使用性測試的結果。因此，這些驗證研究的過程與結果顯示透過人因實驗標準作業程序不僅使人因研究者的研究工作朝向更有效且系統化，並且也落實ISO的概念在人因實驗室中。最後，一個有效提升產品使用性的人因實驗標準作業程序互動模型也被提出。

Usability plays an important role in the overall pleasure of a product. As a result, much ergonomic experiments have been done in an effort to improve product usability. These experimental results are expected to enhance product usability. However, whether the experimental procedures conformed to the ergonomics or not is a matter for argument. This is a significant issue worth exploring for the researchers in ergonomics studies. The aim of this study was to outline an effective and efficient experimental methodology for improving product usability. Our ergonomics guide, the Ergonomics Experimental Standard Operating Procedure (EESOP) for product usability testing, is a structured methodology that makes use of both qualitative and quantitative methods. The characteristics of EESOP can be summarized as follows: 1) structural procedure, 2) concise usability task description, 3) alternative decision, 4) applicability for product usability testing, and 5) standard usability support documents.
Furthermore, this study verified the generalizability of EESOP by applying it to two different types of product usability testing. The two verifying experiments were performed on one consumer product (non-electronic product) and one electronic product. In the verifying experiment I, the optimal choice of tinted visors at different times was significantly presented in the results of verifying experiment. In the verifying experiment II, the design guideline of touched icons was significantly presented by ergonomics experimental standard operating procedure for product usability testing. These results will help users increase the efficiency and satisfaction regarding the products that they are using. In short, this study shows that the EESOP not only increased the efficiency of usability research but also extended the concepts of ISO in the ergonomics laboratory to real-world product testing. Finally, a system interaction model is proposed in this study.

ABSTRACT	I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	IV
CONTENTS	V
LIST OF TABLES	VIII
LIST OF FIGURES	IX

Chapter 1 Introduction	 1
1.1 Background and motivation	1
1.2 The purpose of this study	4
1.3 Relevance to industry	5
1.4 Organization of this study	5

Chapter 2 Literature review	8
2.1 Ergonomic methods in product design	8
2.2 The Procedure of Ergonomic methods	10
2.3 Usability Concept	15
   2.3.1 Definition of usability	15
   2.3.2 Usability design principles and benefits	17
   2.3.3 Significance of usability in product	17
2.4 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)	19
2.5 Related study on development of working procedures	21
2.6 Summary	25

Chapter 3 Procedure development and design	29
3.1 Development methods of EESOP for products usability testing	29
3.2 Process structure in EESOP	35
3.3 Main tasks in EESOP	36
3.4 Usability support documents in EESOP	37
3.5 Effectiveness testing of the EESOP	40
3.6 Verifying experiments design for EESOP	40

Chapter 4 Experimental Verification I: Improving product usability on 
         helmet product applying the EESOP	42
4.1 Apply the EESOP to the usability testing of helmet	42
4.2 Define usability of helmet by the EESOP	42
4.3 Building an experiment for helmet by the EESOP	44
4.3.1 Materials	48
4.3.2 Experimental procedures	50
4.3.3 Subjective evaluation	52
4.4 Results	53
4.4.1 Results from descriptive statistics	53
4.4.2 Changes in visibility performance	55
4.4.3 The difference in subjects’ genders	57
4.4.4 Results from subjective evaluation	58
4.5 Discussion and building the document of usability suggestion for verifying        
   experiment I	59
4.6 Summary	63

Chapter 5 Experimental Verification II: Improving icon usability on 
         touchscreen product applying the EESOP	65
5.1 Apply the EESOP to the usability testing of touchscreen	65
5.2 Define usability of touchscreen by the EESOP	65
5.3 Building an experiment for touchscreen by the EESOP	68
5.3.1 Materials	72
5.3.2 Experimental procedures	73
5.3.3 Subjective evaluation	74
5.4 Results	75
5.4.1 Factors of usability	76
5.4.2 Importance of the usability of elements	78
5.4.3 The difference in subjects’ experience	80
5.5 Discussion and building the document of usability suggestion for verifying 
   experiment II	82
5.6 Summary	84

Chapter 6 Discussion and conclusion	86
6.1 Significant results by EESOP	86
6.2 Working modality of EESOP	89
6.3 EESOP system interactive model	90
6.4 Conclusion and suggestion	91

Reference	93
Appendix I	101
VITA	114
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1  Common symbols of standard operating procedures	21
Table 3.1  Format of product usability overview documents	39
Table 4.1  Document of usability overview in the verification experiment I	43
Table 4.2  Document of experimental rules in the verifying experiment I	46
Table 4.3  Document of program in the verifying experiment I	47
Table 4.4  Layout of the on-road test	52
Table 4.5  Results from descriptive statistics	54
Table 4.6  Comparison between male and female performance	58
Table 4.7  Difference compared to no-visor	60
Table 4.8  Document of usability suggestion in the verification experiment I	63
Table 5.1  Document of usability overview in the verification experiment II	67
Table 5.2  Document of experimental rules in the verification experiment II	70
Table 5.3  Document of program in the verification experiment II	71
Table 5.4  Twenty elements of usability	74
Table 5.5  Loadings of elements for the seven main factors	76
Table 5.6  Result of the Duncan t-test	79
Table 5.7  Ranking of elements	79
Table 5.8  Document of usability suggestion in the verification experiment II	85
Table 6.1  The comparison of the EESOP and traditional experimental method for the    
         improvement of product usability                                 88
Table 6.2  Working modality of EESOP                                    89


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1  Research structure of this study	7
Figure 2.1  Example of HTA of kettle operation	9
Figure 2.2  TAFEI diagram of kettle operation	10
Figure 2.3  Operating procedure of observation	12
Figure 2.4  Operating procedure of questionnaires	13
Figure 2.5  Operating procedure of interview	14
Figure 2.6  Usability frameworks from ISO 9241	16
Figure 2.7  A model of SOPs development	20
Figure 2.8  Usability evaluation procedures	23
Figure 2.9  Ergonomic criteria implementation procedure	24
Figure 3.1  Interface of Novagraph Chartist 5.1	30
Figure 3.2  A completed structural overview of EESOP for product usability testing	31
Figure 3.3a  Structure of product usability definition in the EESOP	32
Figure 3.3b  Structure of usability testing in the EESOP	33
Figure 3.3c  Structure of usability suggestion in the EESOP	34
Figure 4.1   Procedure of definition for goal product (i.e., the helmet)	44
Figure 4.2   Procedure of helmets’ experiment according to EESOP	45
Figure 4.3   Procedure of subjects choosing	48
Figure 4.4   Tinted helmets visors used in the experiment	49
Figure 4.5   The experimental situation in the lab	51
Figure 4.6   Procedure of analysis and discussion in the verification experiment I	53
Figure 4.7   Visibility of the different visor types with types of light interference	55
Figure 4.8   Influence of the different helmet visors on visibility	56
Figure 4.9   Changes in visibility performance under light interference	57
Figure 4.10  Difference in visibility performance between genders	57
Figure 4.11  The results of subjective evaluation of tinted helmets	59
Figure 4.12  Comparison of subjective and objective results	64
Figure 5.1  Procedure of definition for the touchscreen	66
Figure 5.2  Procedure of touchscreens’ experiment according to EESOP	69
Figure 5.3  Touchscreen icons used in the experiment II	72
Figure 5.4  Experimental situation	73
Figure 5.5  Procedure of analysis and discussion in the verification experiment II	75
Figure 5.6  Differences in seven factors based on subject experience	82
Figure 5.7  Example of a touch icon	85
Figure 6.1  EESOP system interactive model	90
                                    

Alessi S. M., Trollip S. R., 1991, Computer-Based Instruction, Prentice-hall, New Jersey, USA.
ANSI, 1995, Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs, American National Standard, USA.
Baber, C. & Stanton, N. A., 1992, Defining Problem Spaces in VCR Use: The Application of Task Analysis for Error Identification, Contemporary Ergonomics, Taylor and Francis, London, UK.
Baber, C. and Stanton, N. A., 1994, Task Analysis for Error Identification: a methodology for designing 'error tolerant' consumer products, Ergonomics, vol. 37 (11), pp. 1923-1941.
Baber, C., Stanton, N., 1996, Observation as a technique for usability evaluation, In: Jordan P, Thomas B, Weerdmeester B & McClelland I (eds) Usability evaluation in industry, Taylor & Francis, London, p 85–94.
Benedyk, Rachel, Minister, Sarah, 1998, Applying the BeSafe method to product safety evaluation, Applied Ergonomics, 29, 5-13.
Beringer, D.B., Peterson, J.G., 1985, Underlying behavioral parameters of the operation of touch-input devices: Biases, models, and feedback, Human Factors, vol. 27 (4), pp. 445-458.
Boyce, P., 1981, Illumination and the sensitivity of performance measures, Electricity Council Research Centre, Capenhurst, UK.
Brooks, Frederick, 1988, Grasping reality though illusion: Interactive graphics serving science, Human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, pp. 1-11.
Brühwiler, P.A., Stämpfli, R., Huber, R., Camenzind, M., 2005, CO2 and O2 concentrations in integral motorcycle helmets, Applied Ergonomics, 36, pp. 625–633.
Burg, A., 1966, Visual acuity as measured by dynamic and static tests: comparitive evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, pp. 460-466.
Burke,Mike, 1992, Applied ergonomics handbook, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida
Butters, L.M., Dixon, R.T., 1998. Ergonomics in consumer product evaluation: an evolving process. Appl. Ergon. 29 (1), pp. 55–58.
Buyan, Munkhbayar, Brühwiler, Paul A., Azens, Andris, Gustavsson, Greger, Karmhag, Richard, Granqvist, Claes G., 2006, Facial warming and tinted helmet visors, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36, pp. 11–16.
Carayon, P. and Smith, M.J., 2000, Work organization and ergonomics, Applied Ergonomics, vol. 31, pp. 649–662.
Chapanis, A., 1991. Evaluating usability. In: Shackel, B., Richardson, S. (Eds.), Human Factors for Informatics Usability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cushman William H., Rosenberg, Daniel J., 1991, Human factors in product design, Elsevier Science Pub. Co.,New York., USA.
Drury, C.G., 1990, Methods for direct observation of performance, Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonom ics Methodology, Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
Eklund, J., 1997, Ergonomics, quality and continuous improvement conceptual and empirical relationships in an industrial context, Ergonomics vol. 40 (10), pp. 982-1001.
EPA, 2001, Guidance for Preparing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Environmental Protection Agency Publication, USA.
FEMA, 1999, Developing Effective Standard Operating Procedures For Fire and EMS Departments, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA EME-98-CO-0202, USA.
Fowles, Grant R., 1989, Introduction to Modern Optics, Dover Publications, New York, US.
Gabella, B., Reiner, Kathy L., Hoffman, Richard E., Cook, M and Stallones, L., 1995, Relationship of helmet use and head injuries among motorcycle crash victims in El Paso county, Colorado, 1989–1990, Accid. Anal. Prev., 27, pp. 363-369.
Galer, I. A. R., 1987, Applied Ergonomics Handbook, 2nd ed., Butterworths,London.
Götz, V., 1998, Color and type for the screen, RotoVision, Berlin.
Han, S.H., Yun, M.H., Kim, K., Kwahk, J., 2000. Evaluation of product usability: development and validation of usability dimensions and design elements based on empirical models. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 26 (4), pp. 477–488.
Hartley, James, 1999, Applying ergonomics to Applied Ergonomics: using structured abstracts, Applied Ergonomics vol. 30, pp. 535-541.
Hecht, Eugene, 2002, Optics, 4th Edition, Addison Wesley, San Francisco, US.
Helander, M., 1997, The human factors profession. In: Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Wiley, New York, USA, pp. 3-16.
Helander, Martin, 2006, A guide to human factors and ergonomics, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida.
Hix, D. & Hartson, H. R., 1993, Developing user interfaces: Ensuring usability through product and process. New York, USA.
Hollins, B., Pugh, S., 1990, Successful Product Design. Butterworth & Co., London.
Huang, Shih-Miao, Shieh, Kong-King, Chi, Chai-Fen, 2002, Factors affecting the design of computer icons, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 29, pp. 211–218.
Ichikawa, M., Chadbunchachai, W., Marui, E., 2003, Effect of the helmet act for motorcyclists in Thailand, Accid. Anal. Prev., 35, pp. 183–189.
Jalie, M., 1989, The Principles of Ophthalmic Lenses, Assoc Brit Disp Opticians.
Jordan, Patrick W., 1998, Human factors for pleasure in product use, Applied Ergonomics, Vol29, No. 1, pp. 25-33.
Kaiser, H. F., 1974, An index of factorial simplicity, Psychometrika, vol. 30, pp. 1-14.
Kirwan, B., Ainsworth, L. K., 1992, A guide to task analysis. Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
Kwahk, S.H. Han, 2002, A methodology for evaluating the usability of audiovisual consumer electronic products, Applied Ergonomics, vol.33, pp. 419-431.
Lindberg, Tomas, Näsänen, Risto, 2003, The effect of icon spacing and size on the speed of icon processing in the human visual system, Displays, vol.24, pp, 111–120.
MacLeod, Iain S., 2003, Real-world effectiveness of Ergonomic methods, Applied Ergonomics, vol. 34, pp.465–477.
Maguire, Martin, 2004, Usability, In: Sandom C., Harvey R. S. (Eds.), Human factors for engineers.
Marcus, Aaron, 1992, Graphic design for electronic documents and user interface, , ACM, New York.
Mattehews, G., Dorn, L., & Glendon, A.I., 1991, Personality correlates of driver stress, Personality and Individual Differences, vol.12, pp. 535-549.
McKnight, A., James and McKnight, A., Scott, 1995, The Effect of motorcycle helmets upon seeing and hearing, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 27, 4, pp. 493-501.
Miller, John, Stacey, Margaret, 1993, The Driving Instructor’s Handbook, Seventh edition, Kofan Page, London.
Näsänena, Risto, Ojanpää, Helena, 2003, Effect of image contrast and sharpness on visual search for computer icons, Displays, vol. 24, pp. 137–144.
Noma, Haruo, Miyasato, Tsutomu, Kishino, Fumio, 1996, A palmtop display for dexterous manipulation with haptic sensation, Proc CHI’96 conference: Human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, pp. 126-133.
Norman, Kent, 1991, The psychology of menu selection: Designing cognitive control at the human/computer interface, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
Oborne, D.J., 1982, Ergonomics at Work , Johm Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York,. U.S.A..
Olson, J., Brewer, C., A., 1997, An evaluation of color selections to accommodate map users with color vision impairments, Annals of the Association of American Geographics, vol. 87, pp.103-134.
Oppenheim, A. N., 1992, Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. Pinter Publishers, London, UK.
Parhi, Pekka , Karlson, Amy K. , Bederson, Benjamin B., 2006, Target size study for one-handed thumb use on small touchscreen devices, Proceedings of the 8th conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services, pp.12-15.
Peacock, Brian, 2002, Measurement in Manufacturing Ergonomics, Handbook of Human Factors Testing and Evaluation, Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, USA. pp. 224-228.
Peacock, Brian, 2002, Measurement in Manufacturing Ergonomics, Handbook of Human Factors Testing and Evaluation, Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, USA.
Peek-Asa, Corinne, McArthur, David L., Kraus Jess F., 1999, The prevalence of non-standard helmet use and head injuries mong motorcycle riders, Accid. Anal. Prev., 31, 229–233.
Povlotsky, B., Dubrovsky, V., 1988, Recommended versus preferred in design and use of computer workstations. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 32nd Annual Meeting, pp. 501-505.
Preece, J., 1993, A guide to Usability: Human Factors in Computing, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, England.
Sain C. V., Sutton, C.V., 1996, Documentation practices: A Complete Guide to Document Development and Management for GMP and ISO 9000 Compliant Industries , Advanstar Communications, Cleveland.
Salvendy, G., Carayon, P.,1997, Data collection and evaluation of outcome measures, In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. Wiley, New York. USA.
Salvendy, Gavriel, 2006, Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.,USA.
Sanders, M., McCormick, E., 1993. Human Factors in Engineering and Design, seventh ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Sanders, M.S., McCormick, E.J., 1998, Human Factors in Engineering Design, 7th ed. Mcgraw-Hill, New York.
Sandom C., Harvey R. S., 2004, Human Factors for Engineers, IEE Publishing, London. UK.
Sear, A., Plaisant, C., Shneiferman, B, 1992, Anew era for touchscreen applications: High-precision, dragging, and direct manipulateion metaphors, Advances in human-computer interaction, vol.3, pp. 1-33.
Sears, A., 1991, Improving touchscreen keyboards: Design issues and a comparison with other devices, Interacting with Computers, vol.3 (3), pp. 251-269.
Shinar, David, 1978, Psycholgy on the road: the human factor in traficc safety, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Shneiderman, Ben, 1992, Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd edition. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA.
Shneiderman, Ben, Plasisant, Catherine, 2004, Designing the user interface, Addison-Wesley, USA.
Sinclair, M. A., 1990, Subjective assessment, In: Wilson, J. R. and Corlett, E. N. (Eds.), Evaluation of human work, Taylor & Francis, London, pp.51-70.
Sinclair, M. A., 1990, Subjective assessment. In: Wilson, J. R. and Corlett, E. N. (Eds.), Evaluation of human work, Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 69-100.
Stanton N. A .,Young M. S., Stanton, N.A. and Young, M.S., 1999, A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics, Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
Stanton, N., Young, M., 1998. Is utility in the mind of the beholder? A study of ergonomics methods, Applied Ergonomics, vol.29 (1), pp.41–54.
Stanton, N.A. and Baber, C., 1996, Task analysis for error identification: applying HEI to product design and evaluation, In P.W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B.A. Weerdmeester and I. McClelland, Usability Evaluation in Industry London: Taylor and Francis, pp.215-224.
Stanton, N.A. and Young, M.S., 2003, Giving ergonomics away? The application of. ergonomics methods by novices, Applied Ergonomics vol. 34, pp.479-490.
Stanton, N.A., Baber, C.,1998, A systems analysis of consumer products, In N.A. Stanton (ed.) Human Factors in Consumer Products Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
Stanton, N.A., Young, M.S., 1999, A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics, Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
Stanton, Neville, 1998, Human Factors in Consumer Products,Taylor & Francis, London,UK.
Steyvers, F.J.J.M., Gaillard, A.W.K., 1993. The effects of sleep deprivation and incentives on human performance. Psychological Research, 55, 64–70.
Stone, Debbie, Jarrett, Caroline, Woodroffe, Mark, Minocha, Shailey, 2005, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, USA.
Sümer, N., Lajunen, T., & Ozkan, T., 2005, Big Five Personality Traits as the Distal Predictors of Road Accident Involvement, Traffic and Transport Psyhology, pp.215-227.
Sutton, C. V., Sain, C.V. De,1996, Meeting GMP and ISO 9001 Expectations for Product Development, Parexel International, Waltham, USA.
Tang, Kuo-Hao, Tsai, Li-Chen, Lee, Yueh-Hua, 2006, A human factors study on a modified stop lamp for motorcycles, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 36, pp. 533–540.
Waard, Dick de, Brookhuis, Karel, Mesken, Jolieke, 2005, Evaluation of legibility of not properly reflecting signs, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35, pp. 645–651.
Warburton, D., 1995, Problem Procedures: Five Common Mistakes Engineers Make in Writing Manufacturing Procedures, Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry, pp. 224-228.
Wickens, C, 1984, Engineering psychology and hu,an performance, Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Wilson, J. aad Corlett, N. (1995) Evaluation of Human Work. 2nd Edition. Taylor and Francis, London.
Woodaon, W. E., Tllan, B. and Tillman, P.,1992, Human Factors Design Handbook: Information and Guidelines for the Design of Systems, Facilities, Equipment, and Products for Human Use, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Wu, S.P., Hsieh, C.S., 2002, Ergonomics study on the handle length and lift angle for the culinary spatula, Appl Ergonomics , vol 33, pp. 493-501.
Wulff, I. A., Westgaard, R.H., Rasmussen, B., 1999, Ergonomic criteria in large-scale engineering design: Evaluating and applying requirements in the real world of design, Applied Ergonomics, vol.30, pp.207-221.

校內：2011-06-18公開
校外：2011-06-18公開

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文