Title: 手持設備之行動遊歷輔助工具之研究
A Study on Navigation Support Tools for Mobile Browsers on Handheld Devices
Authors: 王瑩玨
Ying-chueh Wang
Pei-luen Rau
Te-yan Yang
Keywords: PDA;手持式設備;行動設備;遊歷輔助工具;歷程紀錄;主選單;總覽圖;PDA;Handheld Devices;Mobile Devices;Navigation Support Tools;History;Main Menu;Overview
Issue Date: 2001
Abstract: 本研究之目的是探討在手持平台的超媒體系統中,遊歷輔助工具種類對使用者表現的影響。所討論的使用者表現分別為表現時間、步數、滿意度、以及迷失度四個面項。實驗的受測者為20-30歲未使用過PDA、並有兩年以上電腦經驗的大學生及研究生,共36名。受試者採隨機次第分配法,依遊歷輔助工具不同,分至四組不同的手持平台,分別是「無遊歷輔助工具」組、「主選單」組、「歷程紀錄」組、「主選單+歷程記錄」組。為了將執行各項任務的順序納入考量,每一組的9位受測者,再分成三種執行任務的順序,實驗採Double Latin Square 設計。 本研究主要的假設是:遊歷輔助工具種類會對使用者在表現時間、步數、滿意度、以及迷失度四個面向上產生顯著影響,研究結果歸納如下:就整體表現而言,「無遊歷輔助工具」組在四個面向上的表現最差;「主選單」組、「歷程紀錄」組、「主選單+歷程記錄」組在時間、步數、滿意度上無顯著差異,在迷失度上則是「主選單」、「主選單+歷程記錄」兩組無顯著差異,並優於「歷程紀錄」組;針對各項任務作時間與步數的分析,結果大致上與整體表現一致。不一致的部分為:作「小範圍搜尋瀏覽」時,四組無顯著差異;作「大範圍搜尋瀏覽」時,「主選單」、「主選單+歷程記錄」兩組無顯著差異且表現最好,「歷程紀錄」組次之,「無遊歷輔助工具」組表現最差。 總結研究結果,發現不論是「歷程紀錄」或是「主選單」,只要提供其中任何一種遊歷輔助工具,對使用者的使用表現都有顯著的幫助。若是比較兩種遊歷輔助工具,研究發現,使用者在提供「主選單」的手持式平台上的瀏覽表現,比在提供「歷程紀錄」的手持式平台上表現佳。
The purpose of this study is to find out whether the users’ performance would vary with the sorts of navigation support tools in the hypermedia system on handheld devices. The performance factors discussed here include the performance time, the steps, the satisfaction, and the lost degree. The subjects are 36 novices at PDA with more than 2-year experience of using computers, aged from 20-30, studying at colleges or graduate schools. The subjects are randomly dispatched to four groups that are equipped with different navigation support tools, including “non-navigation support tools,” “main menu,” “history,” and “main menu & history.” The sequence of operating is considered. Nine participants of each group are divided into three subgroups. Each subgroup has particular sequence to put the experiment into practice. And the design of the experiment follows the device of Double Latin Square. The main assumption of the study is that navigation support tools have significant influence on the performance of users in the aspects of performance time, the steps, the satisfaction, and the lost degree. The results are concluded as follows. To see as a whole, the performance of the group without navigation support tools is inferior to those of all the other groups. On the other hand, among the other three groups of “main menu,” “history” and “main menu & history,” there is no remarkable difference at the aspects of the performance time, the steps, and the satisfaction. Meanwhile, as far as “the lost degree” is concerned, there is no obvious difference observed between the group with “main menu ” and the group with “main menu & history,” and the both groups perform better than the group of “history.” Investigating every individual task in the aspects of “the performance time” and “the steps”, the outcomes are coincident to the results of a whole. Nevertheless, there are diverse outcomes. The performances in small scale searching browsing are about the same for all groups. However, in large scale searching browsing, the group of “main menu ” and the group of “main menu & history” perform worse than the group of “history.” And the group without any navigation support tool performs worst. To sum up, providing either “history” or “main menu” as a navigation support tool would be a great help to the performance of users while they are browsing, and users usually perform even better with “main menu” rather than with “history” on handheld devices.
Appears in Collections:Thesis