簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 郭堉婷
Kuo, Yu-Ting
論文名稱： 從文字陳述方式探討數位金融平台介面操作的理解度
Assessing Comprehension of Textual Instructions in Mobile Banking Applications with Varying Presentations
指導教授： 何俊亨
Ho, Chun-Heng
學位類別： 碩士
Master
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： 2023
畢業學年度： 111
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 159
中文關鍵詞： 文字理解度 、數位金融 、使用者體驗 、認知 、介面閱讀
外文關鍵詞： Text comprehension, digital finance, user experience, cognition, interface reading
相關次數： 點閱：103  下載：15 
分享至:
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

    • 隨著金融型態的改變以及銀行的推廣下，使用數位金融服務已經成為日常所需，然而網路金融不同以往能以人與人之間的服務來做情感交流，取而代之的是與介面之間的互動。若在使用數位金融時，顧客因文字的理解造成感受不好的使用者體驗，將導致顧客的負面情緒攀升以減少利用網路金融投資的意願，且操作不良煩躁的情緒也會影響顧客對於銀行的信任感以及滿意度，失去信任以及滿意的根基將致使銀行利潤下降，長遠來看更可能導致市占率降低。
    根據過往研究指出數位金融服務中許多易用性問題皆與文字相關，依據普爾信用評比等機構(S&P)於2015年發布的金融識字率調查顯示，台灣金融識字率僅有37%，綜觀文獻以及人口統計的顯示之下，金融用語對於民眾的理解問題越來越重要。
    因此本研究將利用應用程式中的排名來比較並篩選測試介面，透過文獻回顧中銀行易用性問題與文字理解相關內容做為出發，探討相同的問題在台灣是否對於使用者來說也會影響到文字的理解程度，將先以焦點小組確認文字專業度後續再利用使用者測試確認文字理解程度對於操作的影響。
    透過專家焦點小組的評分及討論可以得知，在各家網路金融中的文字敘述存在專業度的差異，然而文字敘述專業度的差異在使用者測試中卻依然被判定為無法理解，同時使用者也無法感受到情緒及工作負荷上的差異，而出現此種結果的原因可能為金融識字率的低落，為了能立即針對此種現象做出改善，因此本研究針對專家所討論給出的專業度規範、使用者情緒感受回饋提出投資介面中文字設計的建議。

    As financial trends change and the promotion of banks, Digital Finance has become a daily necessity, nevertheless, Unlike the past, digital finance can be used as a service for emotional communication between humans, replaced by the interaction of the interface. If customers cannot perceive positive user experience while using digital finance due to the comprehension of text, negative emotions may rise and decrease the intention to invest by using online finance, meanwhile, the irritation of incorrect operation will also decrease the trust and satisfaction of customers to the bank, therefore, losing the foundation of trust and satisfaction will lead to the decline of bank's profit, which may cause the decrease of the percentage of the shares of the population in the long-term.
    Based on previous studies, digital financial services have many usability problem associated with text. According to the financial literacy survey released by S&P in 2015, Taiwan's financial literacy rate only reached 37%, which shows that financial terminology is becoming more and more important for the public's comprehension based on the literature and demographics.
    Therefore, this research study compares and filters the test interfaces using the rankings of the applications, takes the banking usability issues and the text comprehension related contents in the literature review as the starting point, and investigates whether the same issues affect users' comprehension of the text in Taiwan. Focus groups will be used to confirm the textual professionalism first, and then the user test will be used to confirm the effect of textual comprehension on the operation.
    Based on the expert focus group's evaluation and discussion, it appears that there is a difference in the professionalism of the text descriptions in various digital financial institutions, but the difference in the professionalism of the text descriptions is still recognized as unintelligible in the user's testing, meanwhile, the user also unable to feel the difference in the emotion and workload, the reason for this result may be the low literacy rate of the financial institutions, in order to improve the phenomenon immediately, this research proposed text design suggestions in the investment interface based on the professionalism standard given by the experts, and the user's feedback on the emotion and feeling.

    摘要 i SUMMARY ii ACKNOWLEGEMENT iv TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES x LIST OF FIGURES xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Research Background 1 1.2 Research Motivation 3 1.3 Research Objectives And Structure 3 1.4 Research Contribution 5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7 2.1 Written Presentation 7 2.1.1 User Experience Writing 8 2.1.2 Text Typography 8 2.1.3 The Impact Of Interface Text Reading 9 2.1.4 The Effect Of Color On Reading In The Interface 9 2.2 Usability 10 2.3 Usability Of Digital Banking 11 2.3.1 User Satisfaction 13 2.3.2 Semi-structured Interview 14 2.4 Expert Focus Group 15 2.4.1 Definition Of Expert 16 2.4.2 Focus Group 16 2.5 Literature Review Summary 18 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH MERHODS 19 3.1 Research Process And Steps 19 3.2 Pre-stair Preparation 21 3.2.1 Problem Confirmation 21 3.2.2 Text Picking 23 3.2.3 Picking The Test Interface 25 3.2.4 Text Study Block Grouping 27 3.2.5 Summary Of The Pre-process 32 3.3 Focus Group 33 3.4 Experts Recruitment 34 3.4.1 Focus Group Working Process 34 3.5 User Testing 36 3.5.1 NASA-TLX Workload Questionnaire And Comprehension 38 3.5.2 Subjective Satisfaction Questionnaire 39 3.5.3 Participant Recruitment And Test Conduct 39 3.5.4 Semi-structured Interviews 41 3.6 Summary 42 CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS 43 4.1 Focus Group Analysis 43 4.1.1 Text Expertise Analysis 46 4.2 The Investment Group Explains The Post-event Verification 47 4.2.1 Portfolio Description Expert Explanation 49 4.3 Post-event Verification Of Fund Names And Expert Explanations 51 4.4 Post-mortem Verification Of Historical Performance 53 4.4.1 Historical Performance Line Chart Expert Explanation 54 4.5 Historical Performance Statement Post-verification 54 4.5.1 Historical Performance Illustration Expert Explanation 56 4.6 Focus Group Summary 57 4.7 User Comprehension Analysis 57 4.7.1 The User Understands The Explanation 60 4.8 Subjective User Satisfaction 61 4.8.1 User-subjective Satisfaction Explanation 64 4.9 User Trust And Interpretation 66 4.10 User Pleasure Analysis And Interpretation 67 4.11 NASA-TLX Machine Tool Load Index Results Analysis 69 4.11.1 Portfolio Description Group Workload Indicator Analysis 69 4.11.2 Fund Naming Method Question Group Workload Indicator Analysis 70 4.11.3 Historical Performance Group Workload Metric Analysis 70 4.12 Overall Task Workload 71 4.13 Mental Needs Of NASA-TLX 72 4.13.1 Physical Demand Of NASA-TLX 73 4.13.2 Temporal Demand Of NASA-TLX 73 4.13.3 Performance, Efforts And Frustration Of NASA-TLX 74 4.14 Material Analysis Conclusion 75 CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND RECOMMANDATION 78 5.1 Summary Of Research Result 78 5.2 Design Recommendations For The Text Presentation 79 5.3 Recommendation For Future Research 80 REFERENCE 82 Appendix A CHINESE EDITON 89 第1章 緒論 89 1.1 研究背景 89 1.2 研究動機 91 1.3 研究目的及架構 91 1.4 研究貢獻 93 第2章 文獻探討 94 2.1 文字陳述方式 94 2.1.1 使用者體驗寫作 95 2.1.2 文字排版 95 2.1.3 介面中文字閱讀的影響 96 2.1.4 介面中色彩對於閱讀的影響96 2.2 易用性 96 2.3 網路銀行易用性 98 2.3.1 使用者滿意度 100 2.3.2 半結構訪談 101 2.4 專家焦點小組 101 2.4.1 專家定義 102 2.4.2 焦點小組 102 2.5 文獻回顧小結 103 第3章 研究方法 105 3.1 研究流程及步驟 105 3.2 前置階段準備 107 3.2.1 問題確認 107 3.2.2 文字挑選 108 3.2.3 測試介面挑選 110 3.2.4 文字研究區塊分組 112 3.2.5 前置流程總結 117 3.3 焦點小組 118 3.3.1 專家募集 118 3.3.2 焦點小組進行方式 119 3.4 使用者測試 120 3.4.1 NASA-TLX 工作負荷問卷及理解度 122 3.4.2 主觀滿意度問卷 122 3.4.3 受測者招募及測驗進行方式 123 3.4.4 半結構訪談 125 3.5 總結 126 第4章 資料分析 127 4.1 焦點小組分析 127 4.1.1 文字專業度分析 130 4.2 投組說明事後檢定 131 4.2.1 投資組合說明專家解釋 132 4.3 基金名稱事後檢定及專家解釋 134 4.4 歷史績效事後檢定 135 4.4.1 歷史績效線圖專家解釋 136 4.5 歷史績效說明事後檢定 137 4.5.1 歷史績效說明專家解釋 138 4.6 焦點小組總結 139 4.7 使用者理解度分析 139 4.7.1 使用者理解解釋 142 4.8 使用者主觀滿意度 142 4.8.1 使用者主觀滿意解釋 145 4.9 使用者信任度及解釋 146 4.10 使用者愉悅度分析與解釋 148 4.11 NASA-TLX 工作負荷指標結果分析 149 4.11.1 投資組合說明題組工作負荷指標分析 149 4.11.2 基金命名方式題組工作負荷指標分析 150 4.11.3 歷史績效題組工作負荷指標分析 150 4.12 整體任務工作負荷 151 4.13 NASA-TLX 心智需求 152 4.13.1 NASA-TLX 體力需求 152 4.13.2 NASA-TLX 時間需求 153 4.13.3 NASA-TLX 自我表現、努力程度及挫敗感 153 4.14 資料分析結論 154 第5章 總結 157 5.1 結論 157 5.2 文字陳述方式的設計建議 158 5.3 未來展望 159

    Alhejji, S., Albesher, A., Wahsheh, H., & Albarrak, A. (2022). Evaluating and Comparing the Usability of Mobile Banking Applications in Saudi Arabia. Information 2022, Vol. 13, Page 559, 13(12), 559.https://doi.org/10.3390/INFO13120559

    Altin Gumussoy, C. (2016). Usability guideline for banking software design. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 277–285.https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2016.04.001

    B. Shackel, & S. J. Richardson. (1991). Human Factors for Informatics Usability. https://books.google.com.tw/books?hl=zhTW&lr=&id=KSHrPgLlMJIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=shackel+usability&ots=IXTsKTUXA9&sig=g2RyWCufHXfz4df1kIFm2ZkNy9U&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=shackel%20usability&f=false

    Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale. Https://Doi.Org/10.1080/10447310802205776, 24(6), 574–594.https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776

    Chadwick-Dias, A., McNulty, M., & Tullis, T. (2002). Web usability and age: how design changes an improve performance. ACM SIGCAPH Computers and thePhysically Handicapped, 73–74, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/960201.957212

    Chin, J. P., Diehl, V. A., & Norman, K. L. (1988). Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, Part F130202, 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1145/57167.57203

    Dianat, I., Adeli, P., Asgari Jafarabadi, M., & Karimi, M. A. (2019). User-centred web design, usability and user satisfaction: The case of online banking websites in Iran. Applied Ergonomics, 81, 102892.https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APERGO.2019.10289294

    DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.13652929.2006.02418.X

    Diniz, E., Porto, R. M., & Adachi, T. (2005). Internet Banking in Brazil: Evaluation of Functionality, Reliability and Usability. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 8(1), pp41-50-pp41-50. https://academicpublishing.org/index.php/ejise/article/view/349

    Donald E. Knuth. (1998). Digital Typography. Center for the Study of Language and Inf. https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/dt.html

    Donald, I., Taylor, P. J., Johnson, S., & Cooper, C. (2005). Work Environments, Stress, and Productivity: an Examination Using ASSET Dhabi View project Email Stress View project. Article in International Journal of Stress Management. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.12.4.409

    Einhorn, H. J. (1972). Expert measurement and mechanical combination. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7(1), 86–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(72)90009-8

    Einhorn, H. J. (1974). Expert judgment: Some necessary conditions and an example. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 562–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/H0037164

    Eldesouky, D. F. B. (2013). Visual Hierarchy and Mind Motion in Advertising Design. ..Journal of Arts and Humanities, 2(2), 148–162.

    Frein, S. T., Jones, S. L., & Gerow, J. E. (2013). When it comes to Facebook there may be more to bad memory than just multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2179–2182. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2013.04.031

    Garrett, J. J. (2011). The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web and Beyond, Second Edition Notice of Rights Notice of Liability (2nd ed.). Peachpit Pr. www.newriders.com

    Hanna Kallio MNSc, Anna-Maija Pietilä, Martin Johnson, & Mari Kangasniemi Docent. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework
    95for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing Research, 72(12), 2949–3217.

    Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. Advances in Psychology, 52(C), 139–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9

    Hawlitschek, F., Jansen, L. E., Lux, E., Teubner, T., & Weinhardt, C. (2016). Colors and trust: The influence of user interface design on trust and reciprocity. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2016-March, 590–599. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.80

    Hung, W.-H., Tseng, C.-L., Chang, F.-K., & Ho, C.-F. (2021). Effects of Utilitarian and Hedonic Emotion on the Use of Online Banking Services. Journal of Global Information Management, 29(6), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.20211101.OA5

    Iaria, G., Palermo, L., Committeri, G., & Barton, J. J. S. (2009). Age differences in the formation and use of cognitive maps. Behavioural Brain Research, 196(2), 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BBR.2008.08.040

    iso. (1994). ISO 9001:1994 - Quality systems — Model for quality assurance in design, development, production, installation and servicing. In iso. https://www.iso.org/standard/16534.html

    ISO, IEC JTC 1, SC 7, & WG 6. (2007, August 23). ISO/IEC 9126-1:2001, Software engineering -- Product quality -- Part 1: Quality model. Multiple. Distributed through American National Standards Institute (ANSI). https://www.iso.org/standard/22749.html

    Jakob Nielsen. (1993). Usability Engineering . https://books.google.com.tw/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=95As2OF67f0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=what+is+usability&ots=3cEDxkfpYq&sig=AepcuYo9c7knMiUn7FWb_C13Eow&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20usability&f=false

    Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Political Psychology, 12(2), 247–278.https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1975-29417-000

    José Manuel Conde Hernad, & Cristina González Gaya. (2013). Methodology for Implementing Document Management Systems to Support ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management Systems. Procedia Engineering, 63, 29–35.

    K L Barriball, & A While. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing Research, 19(2).

    KPMG. (2021). 2021台灣銀行業報告.https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/tw/pdf/2021/06/tw-kpmg-banking-report-2021.pdf

    Krueger, R. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. https://books.google.com/bookshl=en&lr=&id=8wASBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=XfiKEw7NoU&sig=HNHMvKX6Y9vwtcc4qYx9kyYXpII

    Ligertwood, G. (2017, June 5). UX writing: How to do it like Google with thispowerful checklist.

    Loranger, H. (2015, August 9). Headings are pickup lines. Nielsen Norman Group.

    Malaquias, R. F., & Hwang, Y. (2019). Mobile banking use: A comparative study with Brazilian and U.S. participants. International Journal of Information Management, 44, 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINFOMGT.2018.10.004

    Mohammadi, H. (2015). A study of mobile banking loyalty in Iran. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2014.11.015

    Morse, J. (1994). Critical issues in qualitative research methods. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3ZlrPlpU1oAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP12&ots=yQWoPB0X7M&sig=kZ2ut7W3xDIkcl0fsg_E0RsyJS4

    Mujinga, M., Eloff, M. M., & Kroeze, J. H. (2018). System usability scale evaluation of online banking services: A South African study. South African Journal of Science,114(3–4). https://doi.org/10.17159/SAJS.2018/20170065

    N Coupland. (2001). Dialect stylization in radio talk. Language in Society, 30(3), 345–375. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404501003013

    Nielsen, J. (2009). First 2 words: A signal for the scanning eye. . Nielsen Norman Group.

    Nielsen, J. (2010). What Is Usability? User Experience Re-Mastered, 3–22.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375114-0.00004-9

    Patrick W. Jordan. (2002). An Introduction to Usability.

    Portmann, L. (2022). Crafting an audience: UX writing, user stylization, and the symbolic violence of little texts. Discourse, Context and Media, 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2022.100622

    Redish, J., & James, N. (2013). Writing for the web and mobile.

    Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The One Number You Need to Grow. www.hbr.org

    Sauro, J., & Dumas, J. S. (2009). Comparison of three one-question, post-task usability questionnaires. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 1599–1608. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518946

    Shen, Z., Zhang, L., Li, R., Hou, J., Liu, C., & Hu, W. (2021). The effects of color combinations, luminance contrast, and area ratio on icon visual search performance. Displays, 67, 101999. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DISPLA.2021.101999

    Speechly, A. K., & Irwin, R. (2019). Writing for mobile media In fulfilment of the requirements.

    Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. (2016). Online Focus Groups. Https://Doi.Org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1252288, 46(1), 48–60.https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1252288

    Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus Groups: Theory and Practices. . http://www.sciepub.com/reference/7508

    Susanto, A., Lee, H., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2013). User acceptance of Internet banking in Indonesia: initial trust formation.Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1177/0266666912467449, 29(4), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666912467449

    Swasty, W., & Adriyanto, A. R. (2017). Does Color Matter on Web User Interface Design. CommIT (Communication and Information Technology) Journal, 11(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.21512/COMMIT.V11I1.2088

    Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7

    Taylor, M. C. (2005). Interviewing. Qualitative research in health care.

    Tekfi, C. (1987). READABILITY FORMULAS: AN OVERVIEW. Journal of Documentation, 43(3), 261–273.

    Tsai, H. T., Chien, J. L., & Tsai, M. T. (2014). The influences of system usability and user satisfaction on continued Internet banking services usage intention: Empirical evidence from Taiwan. Electronic Commerce Research, 14(2), 137–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10660-014-9136-5

    Turner, D. W. (2010). Qualitative Interview Design: A Practical Guide for Novice Investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754–760. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1178

    Twinn, S. (1998). An analysis of the effectiveness of focus groups as a method of qualitative data collection with Chinese populations in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(3), 654–661. https://doi.org/10.1046/J.1365-2648.1998.00708.X

    UNISYS. (2019). 創建可信任的銀行體驗 優利銀行業洞察報告.

    Walayat Hussain, Omar Khadeer Hussain, Farookh Khadeer Hussain, & Muhammad Qasim Khan. (2017). Usability Evaluation of English, Local and Plain Languages to Enhance On-Screen Text Readability: A Use Case of Pakistan (Vol. 18). Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management.

    Zwaanswijk, M., & Van Dulmen, S. (2014). Advantages of asynchronous online focus groups and face-to-face focus groups as perceived by child, adolescent
    99 and adult participants: A survey study. BMC Research Notes, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-756

    中央存款保險公司存款保險資訊編輯委員會. (108 C.E., September 30). 存款保險資訊季刊. 財政部中央存款保險股份有限公司 , 1–13. https://www.statista.com/statistics/203734/global-smartphone-penetration-per-capita-since-2005/

    張明珠. (2019). 淺談機器人理財在台灣未來之發展. 證券暨期貨月刊, 37(1), 14–25.

    徐世美, 曾世偉, 趙慶勇, & 陳宥竹. (2018). 應用NASA-TLX 量表評估電腦斷層造影訓練之心智負荷. 臺灣醫事放射期刊, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.6717/JTMRT.201812_6(2).0001

    楊明宗. (2011). 認知需求與一致性/非一致性語言對數學文字題解題表現的影響__臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/b9948r

    葉國棟. (2006). 中文字型種類以及字距與行距對國小六年級學童閱讀速度之影響. In 國立臺中教育大學. https://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/login?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22094NTCTC629028%22.&searchmode=basic

    鄭貞茂. (2018, June). 落實提升金融識字率 消費者保障權益更穩固. 台灣銀行家, 35–37. http://service.tabf.org.tw/FBS/Doc/Preview/89303.pdf

    下載圖示 校內：立即公開
    校外：立即公開
    QR CODE