進階搜尋


下載電子全文  
系統識別號 U0026-0508201718512300
論文名稱(中文) 穿戴式裝置之慢科技設計之研究
論文名稱(英文) A Study of Applying Slow Technology on Wearable Device
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 工業設計學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Industrial Design
學年度 105
學期 2
出版年 106
研究生(中文) 莊子右
研究生(英文) Tzu-Yu Chuang
學號 P36034145
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 109頁
口試委員 召集委員-林振陽
口試委員-蕭世文
指導教授-謝孟達
口試委員-楊智傑
口試委員-徐芳真
中文關鍵字 慢科技  平靜科技  穿戴式裝置  情感運算  普適運算  使用者經驗 
英文關鍵字 Slow Technology  Calm Technology  wearable device  affective computing  Ubiquitous Computing  User Experience 
學科別分類
中文摘要 Quantified Self Movement,是透過穿戴式裝置記錄自身的生理數據,使用者透過被記錄下來的數據能認識自己各層面資訊的運動,因都將數據以視覺化圖表呈現,所以也稱為Personal Informatics。透過詳細的圖表呈現,讓人們透過數據更認識自己。慢科技提出者Hallnäs 和 Redström從Weiser提出的平靜科技延伸出另一個想法,電腦科技產品不僅應在大部分的時候靜靜待在背景,當與使用者發生互動時,其呈現資訊的方法經過設計,使用者在接受特定資料與訊號時,能夠得到美感上的體驗與反思的機會。若穿戴式裝置所記錄下來的資訊,以平靜科技、慢科技的概念去設計,讓它如家具、家飾般存在我們日常生活中,當使用者需要知道資訊時,不是拿起手機檢視,而是望向身旁日常生活中的家具、家飾以得知資訊。同樣是穿戴式裝置記錄的資訊,卻以不同的方式呈現,是本研究想要探討之議題,以了解使用者對其之想法。
本研究提出兩款應用穿戴式裝置(智慧手錶)作為以情緒管理為目的之概念產品,一為Slow Technology,一為Personal Informatics,並以影片的形式呈現給受測者。研究採用問卷調查法,問卷以AttrakDiff與INTUI兩份問卷架構而成,受測者在欣賞完兩支概念產品影片後,填寫問卷,問卷數據透過獨立樣本T檢定、成對T檢定之統計方法,檢驗人們針對這兩樣產品之間想法(實用性、愉悅性、吸引性、直觀性)上的差別,論述Personal Informatics與Slow Technology產品之使用者體驗差別。
本研究共收集103份有效問卷,數據分析結果,發現Slow Technology產品在實用性、直觀性雖然低於Personal Informatics,但是在愉悅性、吸引性卻高於Personal Informatics。且近一步分析發現,女生與男生在此兩個概念產品給分之平均數差異,於多個項目中有顯著性,表示女生比起男生,給予兩個產品更高的正面評價。另外,願意與不願意為增添家中氣氛購買家飾的人,對於此兩個概念產品給分之平均數差異也有顯著性,願意購買的人會給予兩產品更高的正面評價。歸納受測者於開放式的回覆,若要嚴謹做好情緒管理的話,使用Personal Informatics是比較實用的且直觀的,而對Slow Technology能否達到情緒管理的目的是需進一步深入研究的。然而將記錄下來的數據當作點綴家中氣氛的依據,可讓Slow Technology具有較高的愉悅性與吸引性。所以本研究認為穿戴式裝置能與家飾做整合,將記錄使用者的資訊、數據當作智慧家飾變換依據之素材,開放式地引導使用者反思。在情感辨識技術成熟前,可將具有調理、緩和使用者情緒功能的慢科技作為未來成熟產品上市前的鋪陳策略產品與後續研究。
英文摘要 Quantified Self Movement is a kind of movement that users can learn different aspects of information of their own with physiological data recorded by wearable devices. It is also called Personal Informatics because these data will be shown in the form of a visual chart. Through detailed chart, people will know themselves more specifically. The proposers of Slow Technology, Hallnäs and Redström, extended a new idea from Calm Technology presented by Weiser that computer tech-products should not only stay silently in the background most of the time. In addition, their way of presenting information should be well-designed to bring aesthetic experience and chances for reflection when interacting with users. If the wearable devices present information in the concept of Slow Technology or Calm Technology, they will exist in our daily lives like furniture or furnishings. When users want to get information, they will turn to their surrounding decorations instead of mobile phones. Information recorded by wearable devices is expressed in different ways, which is the topic of this study, aiming to learn the ideas of users.
This study proposes two conceptual products applied with wearable devices (smart watches) for the purpose of emotional management. One is designed with Slow Technology, and the other is designed with Personal Informatics. Both of them are presented to the subjects in the form of videos. Questionnaire survey method is used in this study. The questionnaire consists of two types, AttrakDiff and INTUI. Subjects will fill out the questionnaires after enjoying two videos of conceptual products. The questionnaire data will be tested by the independent sample and paired sample t-test in order to test the difference of ideas and user experience (pragmatic quality, hedonic quality, attractiveness, and intuition) about these two kinds of products.
103 valid questionnaires are collected in this study. It is found that the Slow Technology products are inferior to Personal Informatics products in pragmatic quality and intuition, but superior in hedonic quality and attractiveness. Through further analysis, it is found that males and females have significant differences in average grading on many items. For example, females give more positive evaluation on two products than males. What’s more, the willingness of adding atmosphere to their houses with decoration also witnesses significant differences in average grading. Those who are willing to purchase decorations give more positive evaluation. According to the answers of the open questions, Personal Informatics is more practical and intuitive in rigorous emotional management while Slow Technology deserves a further study on whether it can achieve the goal of emotional management. However, Slow Technology is more enjoyable and attractive in terms of adding to the home atmosphere with the recorded data. Therefore, this study suggests that the wearable devices can be integrated with furniture, providing a material basis of intelligent decoration transformation for users to reflect with the help of recorded information and data. Before the emotion identification technology gets mature, this study can be seen as strategy and research, preparing for Slow Technology products’ going public that ease users emotions.
論文目次 摘要 i
ABSTRACT iii
誌謝 v
INDEX vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Motivation 1
1.2 Research Background 2
1.3 Research Purposes 5
1.4 Research Limitations 6
1.5 Research Framework 7
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8
2.1 User Experience 8
2.1.1 Ubiquitous Computing 8
2.1.2 Affective Computing 9
2.1.3 The definition of User Experience 11
2.1.4 Friction in Interaction Design 12
2.2 Design for Reflection in Human-Computer Interaction 13
2.2.1 How Can Technology Support Reflection? 13
2.2.2 Personal Informatics 16
2.2.3 Slow Technology 22
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHOD 32
3.1 Method of Questionnaire 32
3.2 AttrakDiff Questionnaire 34
3.3 INTUI Questionnaire 37
3.4 Independent Sample T-Test 41
3.5 Paired Sample T-Test 43
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH PROCEDURES 44
4.1 Conceptual Design 45
4.2 The Descriptive Statistics 54
4.2.1 Paired Sample T-Test of Two Conceptual Products 54
4.2.2 Independent Sample T-Test (Females and Males) 70
4.2.3 Independent Sample T-Test (Purchase Intention) 75
4.2.4 The Summary of the Analysis 78
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION 81
ENGLISH REFERENCES 86
CHINESE REFERENCES 91
WEBSITE REFERENCES 92
Appendix A Questionnaire Design 93
Appendix B INTUI Questionnaire 107
Appendix C The Open Answer in the Questionnaire 108

參考文獻 ENGLISH REFERENCES
Baumer, E. P. S. (2015). Reflective Informatics: Conceptual Dimensions for Designing Technologies of Reflection. The Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 585-594.
Baumer, E. P. S., Khovanskaya, V., Matthews, M., Reynolds, L., Schwanda Sosik, V., & Gay, G. (2014). Reviewing reflection. 93-102. doi:10.1145/2598510.2598598
Cappon, D. (1994). A new approach to intuition: IQ2. Omni, 16(12), 34-38.
Case, A. (2015). Calm Technology: Designing for Billions of Devices and the Internet of Things: O'Reilly Media, Inc.
Cena, F., Lombardi, I., Rapp, A., & Sarzotti, F. (2014). Self-monitoring of Emotions: a novel Personal Informatics Solution for an Enhanced Self-Reporting. The Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop Emotions and Personality in Personalized Services (EMPIRE 2014) at Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP14), Aalborg, Denmark.
Chetty, M., Banks, R., Harper, R., Regan, T., Sellen, A., Gkantsidis, C., . . . Key, P. (2010). Who's hogging the bandwidth: the consequences of revealing the invisible in the home. The Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 659-668.
Cox, A. L., Gould, S. J. J., Cecchinato, M. E., Iacovides, I., & Renfree, I. (2016). Design Frictions for Mindful Interactions: The Case for Microboundaries. The Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Santa Clara, California, USA, 1389-1397.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process: D.C. Heath and company.
Dong, T. (2015). Designing Reflective User Experience with Social and Ubiquitous Computing Technologies. (Ph.D), University of Michigan.
Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2001). Design noir: The secret life of electronic objects: Springer Science & Business Media.
Fleck, R., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2010). Reflecting on reflection: framing a design landscape. The Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction, Brisbane, Australia, 216-223.
Fogg, B. J. (2003). Computers as Persuasive Social Actors. In B.J. Fogg’s (Ed.), Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do (pp.31-60). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 31-60.
Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., & Landay, J. (2010). The design of eco-feedback technology. The Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 1999-2008.
Gray, E. K., & Watson, D. (2007). Assessing positive and negative affect via self-report. Handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment, 171-183.
Hallnäs, L., & Redström, J. (2001). Slow Technology – Designing for Reflection. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 201-212.
Hallnäs, L., Jaksetic, P., Ljungstrand, P., Redström, J., & Skog, T. (2001). Expressions; Towards a Design Practice of Slow Technology. The Proceedings of Interact 2001, IFIP TC.13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, July 9- 13, Tokyo, Japan. 447-454.
Hallnäs, L., & Redström, J. (2002). From Use to Presence_ On the Expressions. Computer-Human Interaction, 9, 106-124.
Hammond, K. R. (2000). Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice: Oxford University Press on Demand.
Hartson, R., & Pyla, P. S. (2012). The UX Book: Process and Guidelines for Ensuring a Quality User Experience: Morgan Kaufmann, 1-6.
Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., & Koller, F. (2003). Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. Szwillus, J. Ziegler (Eds.), Mensch & Computer 2003, Berichte des German Chapter of the ACM, Vieweg+Teubner Verlag (2003), 187-196.
Hogarth, R. M. (2001). Educating intuition: University of Chicago Press.
Jaimes, A., & Sebe, N. (2007). Multimodal human–computer interaction: A survey. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 108(1-2), 116-134. doi:10.1016/j.cviu.2006.10.019
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow: Macmillan,
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 263-291.
Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the Power of Judgment: Cambridge University Press.
Klein, G. (1998). Sources of Power: How people make decisions. 1998. MIT Press, ISBN, 13, 978-970.
Krogh, M. (2015). Exploring Slow Technology in the Home. (Master), K3 Malmö University.
Li, I., Dey, A., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. The Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 557-566.
Marcengo, A., & Rapp, A. (2014). Visualization of Human Behavior Data. 236-265. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4309-3.ch012
Mols, I., Hoven, E. v. d., & Eggen, B. (2016). Informing Design for Reflection: an Overview of Current Everyday Practices. The Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Gothenburg, Sweden. 1-10.
Moon, J. A. (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice: Routledge.
Odom, W., Banks, R., Durrant, A., Kirk, D., & Pierce, J. (2012). Slow technology: critical reflection and future directions. The Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 816-817.
Odom, W., Selby, M., Sellen, A., Kirk, D., Banks, R., & Regan, T. (2012). Photobox: on the design of a slow technology. The Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 665-668.
Odom, W. T., Sellen, A. J., Banks, R., Kirk, D. S., Regan, T., Selby, M., . . . Zimmerman, J. (2014). Designing for slowness, anticipation and re-visitation: a long term field study of the photobox. The Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1961-1970.
Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2010). Behavior change support systems: a research model and agenda. The Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Persuasive Technology, Copenhagen, Denmark, 4-14.
Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2013). A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Personal Ubiquitous Comput., 17(6), 1223-1235. doi:10.1007/s00779-012-0591-5
Payne, R. L., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Emotions at Work: Theory, Research and Applications for Management: John Wiley & Sons.
Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing (Vol. 252): MIT press, Cambridge.
Picard, R. W. (2003). Affective computing: challenges. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(1-2), 55-64. doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00052-1
Ploderer, B., Reitberger, W., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & van Gemert-Pijnen, J. (2014). Social interaction and reflection for behaviour change. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(7), 1667-1676. doi:10.1007/s00779-014-0779-y
Poria, S., Cambria, E., Bajpai, R., & Hussain, A. (2017). A review of affective computing. Inf. Fusion, 37(C), 98-125. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.003
Pschetz, L., Banks, R., & Molloy, M. (2013). Movement crafter. The Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction, Barcelona, Spain, 393-394.
Rapp, A., & Cena, F. (2014). Self-monitoring and Technology: Challenges and Open Issues in Personal Informatics. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 613-622.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: New York: Basic Books.
Sengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S., & Kaye, J. J. (2005). Reflective Design. The Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility, Aarhus, Denmark, 49-58.
Tao, J., & Tan, T. (2005). Affective Computing: A Review. The Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, 981-995.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008) (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness: New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Torning, K., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2009). Persuasive System Design: State of the Art and Future Directions. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, April 26-29, 2009, Claremont, California
Ullrich, D., & Diefenbach, S. (2010). From magical experience to effortlessness: an exploration of the components of intuitive interaction. The Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, Reykjavik, Iceland, 801-804.
Ullrich, D., & Diefenbach, S. (2010). INTUI. Exploring the Facets of Intuitive Interaction. The Mensch & computer, 251.
Vaughan, F. (1979). Awakening intuition. Garden City. NY.
Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94-104.
Weiser, M., & Brown, J. S. (1997). The coming age of calm technology Beyond calculation: Springer, 75-85.
Westcott, M. R. (1968). Toward a contemporary psychology of intuition: A historical, theoretical, and empirical inquiry: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Wickens, C. D., Gordon, S. E., Liu, Y., & Lee, J. (1998). An introduction to human factors engineering: Pearson Education, Inc.

CHINESE REFERENCES
陳科帆 (2009). 反思消費文化的慢科技概念設計. 碩士論文, 國立台北科技大學創新設計研究所
藍意茹(2006).「癒す」玩具之設計探究. 碩士論文, 國立臺灣藝術大學造形藝術研究所

WEBSITE REFERENCES
http://uxray.lofter.com/tag/%E7%94%A8%E6%88%B7%E4%BD%93%E9%AA%8C
http://libguides.library.kent.edu/SPSS/PairedSamplestTest
http://intuitiveinteraction.net/
http://ishback.com/
https://nest.com/
http://wiki.mbalib.com/zh-tw/%E9%97%AE%E5%8D%B7%E8%B0%83%E6%9F%A5%E6%B3%95
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welch%27s_t-test

論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2019-09-01起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2019-09-01起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw