目前在電腦上的功能大多都與網路功能息息相關，加上Web2.0網路新趨勢的帶動之下，更多新的網路服務以及與網路有關的技術不斷的推陳出新，而目前的輸入設備在操作上仍然有諸多不便，因此本研究將採用手勢動作的輸入模式來完成電腦指令的輸入，並針對網路瀏覽作為主要的研究範圍。透過網路瀏覽行為以及網路瀏覽器之圖示使用頻率這兩項調查，針對使用者經常使用的網路功能及瀏覽行為，建構出一套適合網路瀏覽使用的手勢輸入動作。本研究針對手勢動作的詞性(名詞/動詞)對不同認知風格的使用者在使用上的差異做探討。手勢動作的四項特性：手形、方向、身體的相對位置以及模仿動作，與ASL(American Sign Language)現有手語詞彙中，與網路功能相關的名詞與動詞，為主要手勢建構的依據。改良ISO標誌發展與測試流程作為本研究名詞手勢與動詞手勢的發展流程。使用藏圖測驗將受測者分成場地獨立以及場地依賴兩種不同的認知風格並針對不同的詞性手勢做使用性評估。最後實驗結果使用相依樣本T檢定，發現不同認知風格的受測者在不同詞性的手勢動作反應時間具有顯著差異，而場地依賴受測者在不同詞性的反應時間具有顯著差異。最後在喜好度主觀評量中，將30個手勢進行集群分析，發現喜好度分數最高的一群手勢中，以「模仿動作」、「手形」這兩項手勢動作特性為主。再使用One-way ANOVA進行分析發現，不同認知風格的受測者在「模仿動作」此項手勢動作特性的喜好度上具有顯著差異。

The functions of the computer are closely related to the network ; under the drive of the new trend of Web2.0 age, there are more new web services and technology developed constantly. The present input equipment still has a great deal of inconvenience in operation, so this research will use the gesture movement to replace the traditional input type of the computer, and regard the network as the main application field. Through the investigation of the frequency of utilization of icon on network browser and presentation on the behavior in network, build up a set of gesture suitable for web browsing.This research focus on the topic, if different morphological features of gestures would have apparent diversity on usability between different cognitive styles of participants. Four characteristics of gesture movements: hand-shape, direction, the relative position of the body and imitative actions, build the basis constructed for the main gesture with noun and verb correlating with function of the network in ASL (American Sign Language) existing sign language vocabulary. The procedure in this research, improved from icon development procedure of ISO, is the main process to develop noun gestures and verb gestures. The participants will be divided into two kinds of cognitive styles, field independence and field dependence, by HFT (Hidden Figure Test) to evaluate the usability of noun gestures and verb gestures.The results show that there were apparent diversity in participants with different cognitive styles on response time test of two different group gesture by Paired samples T-test. There were apparent diversity in participants with field independence cognitive style on response time test of two different group gestures. Analyzing thirty gestures by cluster analysis on subjective survey and found that the most favorite gestures was mainly group by the characters with imitating action and hand shape. Finally, There were apparent diversity in participants with different cognitive styles on favorite gestures with character of imitating action by One-ay ANOVA.

英文部分
1.Baker, C. and Cokley, D., 1991, "Amercian sign language: A teacher’s
resource text on Grammar and culture", Silver Spring, Md., TJ Publishers,
Reprint, Washington, D.C., Gallaudet University Press, Clerc Books.
2.Bragg, B., 1990, "Communication and the deaf community: Where do we go from
here?" In Communication issue among deaf people: A deaf American monograph,
ed. M. Garretson, pp.9-14. Silver Spring, Md., National Association of the
Deaf.
3.Brito, L., 1990, "Epistemic, alethic, and deontic modalities in a Brazilian
sign language". In Theoretical issues in sign language research, ed. S.
Fischer and P.Siple, Vol. 1,pp.229-260. Chicago: Univerity of Chicago Press.
4.Brumby, N.N., 1982, “Consistent differences in cognitive styles shown for
qualitative biological problem-solving,” Journal of educational psychology,
vol.52, pp.244-257.
5.Cambridge, C.D. et al., 1988, "Similarity: Exploring the understanding of
geometric concept". MA: Educational Technology Center.
6.Cooper, 1975, ”Mental rotation of random two-dimensional shapes”,
Cognitive Psychology 7, L.A., pp.20-43.
7.Crowley, M.L., 1987, "The Van Hiele model of the development of geometric
thought”. Learning and teaching geometry K-12, pp.6-13.
8.Dewar, M.C., 1994, “Design and evaluation of graphic symbols,” Proceeding
of public graphics, Utrecht, Netherlands: University of Utrecht Department
of Psychonomics, 7.1-7.2.
9.Foley, V.D. and Feiner, H., 1990, “Computer graphics: Principles and
practice,”Addison Wesley.
10.Frishberg, N., 1975, "Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in
American sign language " . Language 51, pp.676-710.
11.Hoffman, D.L., and Novak, T.P., 1996, “A New Marketing Paradigm for
Electronic Commerce”, The Information Society, vol.13, pp.43-54.
12.Horton, W.K.,1994, The icon book: visual symbols for computer systems and
documentation. New York, J. Wiley.
13.Hunt, J.M., 1990, "The Rehabilitation of the hand", 3rd.ed, St Louis, Mosby.
14.ISO 7239, 1984, ”Iiternational standard for safety solours and safety
signs,”Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization.
15.Jakub S. and Senthil K., 1998, “Human-computer interaction using gesture
recognition and 3D hand tracking,” Image processing, vol.3, pp.188-192.
16.Jordan , P.W., 1998, “Human factors for pleasure in product use,” Applied
Ergonomics, vol.29, pp.25-33.
17.Kjeldsen, R. and Kender, J., 1995, “Visual Hand Recognition for Window
System Control,” International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture
Recognition, pp.184-188,.
18.Kromer, K., 1986. Computing the hand with the human handle, Human Factor,
vol.28,pp.337-339.
19.Kelly, G. A., 1955, The psychology of personal constructs vols. 1 and 2,
New York:Norton.
20.Kuntze, M., 1990, ASL: Unity and Power. In Communication issue among deaf
people: A deaf Amercian monograph, ed. M. Garretson, pp.75-77. Silver
Spring,Md., Nation association of the deaf.
21.Messick, S., 1976, “Personality consistencies in cognition and
creativity,” In Messick, S. and associates (eds.), Individuality in
Learning, pp.4-22. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.Miller, A., 1987, “Cognitive styles: an integrated model,” Educational
Psychology,vol.17, pp.251-268.
23.Nielsen, J., 1993, Usability Engineering, AP Professional.
24.Nordin, M., Frenkel, V.H., and Foressen, K., 1980. Basic Biomechamics of
the Musculoskeletal System.
25.Oden, 1979, ”A fuzzy logical model of letter identification,” Journal of
experimental Psychology：Human Perception and Performance, vol.5, pp.336-
352.
26.Raquel, B.F., 2001, "Using protocol analysis to evaluate the usability of a
commercial web site, Information & Management", Industrial Ergonomics.,
vol.39, pp.151-163.
27.Reinhart, W., 1989, ”Interior & Interface Design on Vehicle Operator
Seat,” Design Issues, vol.2.
28.Riding, R.J. and Buckle, C.E. et al.,1989, “The computer determination of
learning styles as an aid to individualized computer-based training,”
Educational and training technology international, vol.26, pp.393-398.
29.Riding, R.J. and Buckle, C.E., 1990, “Learning styles and training
performance,” Sheffield: training agency.
30.Riding, R.J. and Cheema, I., 1991, “Cognitive styles: an overview and
integration,” Educational Psychology, vol.3&4, no.11, pp.193-215.
31.Robert, V.L., and Johan, W., 1998. “Effect of physical connectivity on the
representational unity of multi-part configurations",Cognition, 69, pp.1-9.
32.Stokoe, W., 1993, "Dictionary making: Then and now", Sign language studies
79, pp.126-146.
33.Shroyer, E., and Shroyer, S., 1984, "Signs across Amercia",Gallaudet
University Press,Washington, D.C..
34.Tanner, P.P., 1987, Human factors in computing systems and graphics
interface: CHI+ GI 1987 Conference proceedings CHI Conference.
35.Vora, P., 1998, "Human factors metholody for designing web ites", Human
Factors and Web Department, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Ins., pp.153-172.
36.Weimer, D. and Ganapathy, S.K., 1992, “Interaction techniques using hand
tracking and speech recognition.” In Multimedia Interface Design, pages
109-126. Addison-Wesley.
37.Witkin, H.A., 1962, Psychological differentation: studies of development,
Wiley.
38.Witkin, H.A. and Goodenough, D.R. et al., 1977, “Field-dependent and
field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications,”
Review of educational research, vol.47, pp.1-64.
39.Witkin, H.A. and Ottman, P.K. et al., 1971, A manual for the embedded
figures test,Palo Alto, Consulting Psychologist Press.
40.Woodward, J. and DeSantis, S., 1977, "Two-to-one it happens: Dynamic
phonology in two sign languages". Sign Language Studies 17, pp.329-346.
41.Zimbardo, P., 1988, Psychology and Life, 12th Ed., Glenview IL: Scott,
Foresman and Co.
42.Zwaga, H.J. and Boersema, T., 1983,”Evaluation of a set of Graphic
Symbols” Applied Ergonomics, vol.14 no. 1, pp. 46.

中文部份
43. 曾元琦，1999，認知風格對使用者介面設計的影響-以掃瞄器為例（The influence
of cognitive styles on user interface design-with scanners as example）, 成
大工業設計研究所碩士論文。
44. 劉炳輝，1999，國中生認知風格與學習方法對學習判斷英語子句效果之研究(A
study of the Effect of Cognitive Styles Learning Approachs on Identifying
English Clause Tasks )，國立中山大學教育研究所 碩士論文。
45. Kluas主講；林銘煌譯，1992，「產品語意學-一個三角關係和四個設計理論」，工業
設計，第二十一卷，第二期，p.p89-100.

參考網頁
46. www.comscore.com, 2005.
47. www.emarketer.com, 2005.
47. www.find.org.tw, 財團法人資訊工業策進會(資策會), 2004.
48. www.pewinternet.org, 2004.
49. www.point-topic.com, 2005.
50. www.twnic.net.tw, 財團法人台灣網路資訊中心(TWNIC), 2006.