語意不一致、曖昧及一致的產品特徵與認知差異/The Design Features of Incongruence, Ambiguity, and Congruence Semantic Products and Cognitive Differences
摘要
許多產品設計案例明顯傳達曖昧語意的感覺，如復古車兼具傳統與現代的外觀。在設計研究中，調查人們對產品造形感受時，通常會使用雙極形容詞的語意差異法，如「現代的vs.傳統的」或「簡單的vs.複雜的」。然而，鮮少有研究探究語意曖昧產品的特徵及影響因素。本研究選用新奇性、感性度、現代感，及複雜度的語意向度，運用語意差異法篩選不同語意距離的產品圖片，包括：語意不一致、語意曖昧，及語意一致，歸納曖昧語意的特徵，並比較設計師與一般人的語意認知差異。研究發現，四個語意向度的語意距離特徵，可分別從「結構和功能」、「造型」、「材料和技術」及「結構和數量」作變化。而且，曖昧的感覺是依據產品的關鍵特徵之突顯性及特異程度來決定語意的層級。語意的敏感度和聯想能力是影響不同背景的語意認知差異之變數。此研究結果可提供設計師在創作新產品的靈感與參考價值。
Many cases of design products obviously convey feelings with ambiguous meanings. For example, a vintage car’s appearance may include traditional and modern aspects, implying ambiguous meanings at the same time. In design research, researchers usually use the semantic differential of bipolar type adjectives to investigate people’s feelings in the process of shaping products, for example, modern versus traditional and simple versus complex. However, few studies have investigated the influential elements of semantic ambiguous products. First, the semantic distances of product images include four dimensions: novelty, affectivity, modernity, and complexity, along with the various semantic distances, including congruence, ambiguity, and incongruence using the semantic differential method. The product features of semantic ambiguity were classified and the cognitive differences between the designers and general public were compared. The result of this study found that the differential semantic distances for the four semantics can be changed from "structure and function", "shape", "material and technology" and "structure and quantity", respectively. Moreover, the ambiguous feelings are based on the key features of significance and particularity of the product, in seeking to determine the semantic level. The semantic sensitivity and associative ability are variables that affect the cognitive differences between various backgrounds. The results of this study can help designers with inspiration and reference value when creating new products.
全文：
v6i1-2_PDF參考文獻
Bloch, P. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59, 16-29.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547-577.
DeVellis R. F. (1998). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. CA: Sage.
Fiell, C., & Fiell, P. (1997). 1000 Chairs. Kolin, New York : Taschen.
Gregory, R. L. (1997). Eye and brain: The psychology of seeing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Goodman, J., Clarke, S., Langdon, P., & Clarkson, J. P. (2007). Designers’ Perceptions of Methods of Involving and Understanding Users. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4554, 127-136.
Hekkert, P., & Wieringen, P. C. W. (1996). The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologica, 94, 117-131.
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & Van Wieringen, P. C. W. (2003). Most advanced, yet acceptable: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 111-124.
Hemachandra, R. (2008). 500 chairs: Celebrating traditional and innovative designs. New York: Lark Books.
Hsiao, K. A., & Chen, L. L. (2006). Fundamental dimensions of affective responses to product shapes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(6), 553-564.
Nodine, C. F., & Kundel, H. L. (1987). Perception and display in diagnostic imaging. Radio Graphs, 7, 1241-1250.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Palmer, S. E. (1975).The effects of contextual scenes on the identification of objects. Memory Cognition, 3, 519-526.
Passmore, J. (1985). Recent philosophers: A supplement to a hundred years of philosophy. Duckworth Publishing, New York, USA.
Pomerantz, J. R. (1981). Perceptual organization in information processing. In M. Kubovy & J. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 141-180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Suwa, M., Purcell, T. & Gero, J. S. (1998). Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers' cognitive actions. Design Studies 19, 455-483.
王靜儀、鍾雨蓁（2017）。利用事件相關電位偵測語意一致性、曖昧及不一致之差異。設計學報(THCI Core)，22(1)，25-45。
林銘煌(2012)。極簡主義在設計上的形式表徵與發展趨向。設計學報，17(1)，78-98。
林銘煌、王靜儀（2012）。以眼動路徑探討多義圖形的辨識歷程。設計學報(THCI Core)，17(2)，49-72。
洪偉肯、陳玲鈴(2010)。如何量測產品的曖昧語意。設計學報，15(4)，41-58。
鄭昭明(1997)。認知心理學：理論與實踐。台北市：桂冠。