本研究透過實驗，探討水龍頭的形態要素對整體操作可見性(Affordance)的影響，此外再融合水龍頭造形魅力的剖析，試圖了解水龍頭操作可見性(Affordance)、魅力與使用者操作情緒三者之間的關係。過去許多研究顯示，操作可見性(Affordance)高的產品能帶給使用者正面的使用情緒，然而有時候消費者更重視的是造形上的魅力，像水龍頭這類產品就是容易讓設計師陷入在操作可見性(Affordance)與魅力之間難以取捨的一個例子。
實驗始於兩個平行的實驗前測，第一個前測以訪談法得知使用者對水龍頭普遍的操作形式與對應形態，第二個前測以魅力工學的評價構造法(Evaluation Grid Method，EGM)得知水龍頭的魅力因子；接著以問卷與統計分析，分別就兩個平行實驗前測，以數量化一類理論探討整體操作可見性(Affordance)與形態要素間的關係，並以複迴歸分析探討整體魅力與魅力因子的關係。最後再融合兩個實驗資料，以複迴歸分析進一步探討對操作情緒所產生的影響。從實驗結果，以期設計師未來在開發這類操作可見性與魅力並重的產品時，能夠有一個以操作情緒為基準的評估指標，創造適合的產品。
研究結果顯示，形態對產品給予人的操作可見性有顯著的影響，其中以控制部件主體造形與控制部件關節兩者的影響最鉅，而操作形式中的扭轉對整體操作可見性有最大正相關。另外，新奇感、清爽感為影響水龍頭整體魅力最重要的心理感受。最後整體魅力對於操作情緒的影響，大於整體操作可見性。

This study tries to understand the correlation between the user’s emotion and the faucet affordance and charm through experiments. Many studies have shown that products having high affordance can bring positive user emotions over the past. However, consumers sometimes pay more attention to the charm of form. Faucet is a kind of product, which is difficult to choose between affordance and charm.
There are two main experiments in this study and we proceeded two interviews before two main experiments separately. One acquired usual operating modes of faucet and corresponding forms, and another one acquired the charm factor by Evaluation Grid Method(EGM), an important method of Miryoku Engineering. Then one of main experiments discussed the correlation between faucet affordance and form factors by Quantification I Analysis, and another one discussed the correlation between charm and charisma factors by Multiple Regression Analysis. Finally, we combine two experiments’ conclusions to unearth the correlation between user’s emotion and the product affordance and charm by Multiple Regression Analysis. This study may provide a reference resource for designers choosing the suitable affordance together with the charm for new products.
The results show that forms, especially the main modeling and the joint of operating elements, affect product affordance significantly. Twist, one of operating mode, has the greatest positive relationship to the affordance. In addition, novelty and fresh feeling are the most important psychological feelings of the charm of faucet. Finally, the charm on the impact of user’s emotion is greater than the product affordance.

國內文獻
1. 林俊男、游蕙瑜、陳淑芬，2001，從生物、心理符號角度解讀 Affordance 理論意義，雲林科技大學工業設計研究所。
2. 游曉貞，1997，設計的認知工程–淺談認知科學大師唐納．諾曼之設計原則，工業設計雜誌，第26卷，第2期。
3. 陳國祥、游曉貞、徐宏文，2001，以承擔特質為基礎的電腦輔助互動性設計系統研究(1)，國科會專題研究計劃成果報告，NSC90-2218-E-224-011。
4. 陳國祥、游曉貞，2001，正規化承擔特質描述語法於產品設計初探，銘傳大學設計學院2001年學術研討會論文集，頁195-202。
5. 林建全，2005，成功大學工業設計研究所碩士論文。
6. 魅力工學研究部會編，1992，魅力工學，海文堂。
7. 朝野熙彥，2001，魅力工學的實踐¬-熱門商品生成步驟，海文堂。

國外文獻
8. Amant, R. ,1999, User Interface Affordances in Planning Representation, Human-Computer Interaction, 14(3): p.317–354.
9. Baecker, R., Buxton, W., Grudin, J., Greenberg, S. ,1995, Readings in Human-Computer Interaction: Toward the Year 2000, San Fransisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
10. Benjafield, J.G. ,1996, Cognition, 2nd ed.,Prentice Hall.
11. Graver, W. ,1991, Technology Affordances, Proceedings of CHI’91(New Orleans), p.79-84.
12. Gibson, J. J. ,1979, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
13. Hartson, H. R. ,2003, Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol.22, No.5, p.315-338.
14. Hawkins, D. I., Best, R. J., Coney K. A. ,1989, Consumer behavior: Building marketing strategy, New York, McGraw Hill
15. Janlert, L. E. & Stolterman, E. ,1997, The Character of Things, Design Studies, 18(3): p.297-314.
16. Kelly, G. A. ,1995, The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vol.1&2, New York, Norton.
17. Koffka, K. ,1935, Principles of Gestalt Psychology, New York, Harcourt & Brace.
18. McGrenere, J. & Ho, W. ,2000, Affordances: Clarifying and Evoling a Concept. In Proceedings of the Graphcis Interface 2000, Canadian Human-Computer Communication Society, Toronto, p.179-186.
19. Miryoku Engineering Forum ,1992, Miryoku Engineering, Kaibundo.
20. Norman, D. A. ,1990, The Design of Everyday Things, Basic Books , New York.
21. Preece, J., Sharp H., Rogers Y. ,2004, Interaction design: Beyond human–computer interaction, Universal Access in the Information Society, Vol.3, No.3-4.
22. Sanui, J. ,1996, Visualization of users’ requirements: Intorduction of the Evaluation Grid Method. Proceedings of the 3rd design & Decision Support Systems in Architecture & Urban Planning Conference, Vol.1, p.365-374.
23. Ujigawa, M. ,1997, The Conceptual Framework of Preference-based Design, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Hci Intl 97), San Francisco CA, p.467-470.