為了更好的輔助設計實務，目前在人機互動領域中有許多套設計圖卡被開發及探討。但是，尚未有研究了解這種設計工具是否在實務中被使用，以及如何更好的設計這些圖卡。目前的研究中，綜合性分析與討論多套設計圖卡的研究也較少，而現有的研究結果仍有不足之處尚未被解決。
本研究透過與4位設計專家進行專家工作坊，分析42套設計圖卡，並將它們進行分類成五種：了解設計方法或工具、協助定義設計問題或需求、了解人、了解領域知識和激發思考，並評估這些圖卡何時在設計過程中最能夠產生幫助。
同時本研究對103位設計實務者進行問卷調查，研究結果顯示儘管這些圖卡具有潛在的價值，但很少有設計實務者將這些圖卡實際應用到實務工作中。根據問卷回答，本研究探討了使用此設計工具的障礙，並提供了改進現有設計圖卡及開發其他類型設計圖卡的機會。
透過專家工作坊與一般設計實務者的問卷調查，本研究的產出可以協助設計實務者根據不同的專案目的、設計情境和設計階段找到適合及有用的設計圖卡；同時也能夠協助我們更了解設計實務者的使用圖卡狀況、需求與障礙，提供對設計圖卡的設計意義與未來開發的建議。

More and more design cards have been developed with the goal of facilitating the design process in the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). However, whether this design tool is being utilized in practice, and how to best design these cards are not yet explored.
In this study, we conducted an expert workshop with 4 expert designers to analyze 42 sets of design cards. We classified existing design cards into five types (to understand method/tools, people, domain, problem, and to inspire) and assess when these cards may be most useful in the design process.
We also surveyed 103 designers in this research, we suggest that despite the potential value of these cards, few designers have actually applied them into their work. Based on our data, we discuss barriers in using this design material and offer both opportunities for improving existing design cards, and areas for developing additional types of design cards.
Our research can help design practitioners to find suitable and useful design cards according to different project goals, design context and design phase. Moreover, our research can help to better understand the situation, needs and barriers of using this tool by practitioners. It provides design implication and suggestions of design cards in the future.

摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
目錄 III
表目錄 V
圖目錄 VI
第一章、緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
1.3 研究流程 3
第二章、文獻探討 4
2.1 設計圖卡工具 4
2.2 設計圖卡目前的研究與發展現況 5
2.3 小結 7
第三章、研究方法 8
3.1 設計圖卡列表 8
3.2 專家工作坊（Expert Workshop） 13
3.1.1 研究參與者 14
3.1.2 先導工作坊（Pilot Workshop） 14
3.1.3 專家個別評估（Individual Assessment） 15
3.1.4 專家工作坊 15
3.3 問卷調查 18
3.2.1 研究參與者 18
第四章、研究結果與討論 20
4.1 專家工作坊結果與討論 20
4.1.1. 設計圖卡功能之分類 20
4.1.2. 設計圖卡適用的設計階段 23
4.1.3. 不同設計圖卡類型對設計工作內容的幫助程度 26
4.1.4. 設計圖卡之趨勢 28
4.2 問卷調查結果與討論 29
4.2.1 設計實務者工作年資與學習和人相關知識或理論的困難之線性迴歸分析 29
4.2.2 設計實務者對於知識的需求與學習狀況 31
4.2.3 設計圖卡之使用狀況 32
4.2.4 設計實務者使用設計圖卡之障礙 33
4.2.5 設計實務者對於設計圖卡之需求 33
4.3 綜合討論 35
第五章、研究結論與建議 38
5.1 研究限制與未來建議 38
5.2 研究貢獻 38
5.3 結論 39
參考文獻 40
附錄 45
附錄一、問卷 45

1. 18F. (2014). 18F Methods. Retrieved from https://methods.18f.gov/
2. 33A AI Design Firm. (2019). AI Design Sprint. Retrieved from https://www.33a.ai/?fbclid=IwAR0SyGapsyyoWlHOfIgfXu7hoGliNWG8FvLdcgUuABmPxl4m8aJb8msOlus
3. 33A AI Design Firm. (2020). AI Ethics Cards. Retrieved from https://www.33a.ai/ethics-1
4. (SILK)., T. S. I. L. K. (2007). SILK Method Kit. Retrieved from https://socialinnovation.typepad.com/silk/silk-method-deck.html
5. Acaroglu, L. (2011). Design Play Cards. Retrieved from https://www.leylaacaroglu.com/portfolio/2016/12/16/design-play-cards
6. Agrawal, A., Abraham, S. J., Burger, B., Christine, C., Fraser, L., Hoeksema, J. M., . . . Scheirer, W. (2020). The Next Generation of Human-Drone Partnerships: Co-Designing an Emergency Response System. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
7. Alshehri, T., Kirkham, R., & Olivier, P. (2020). Scenario Co-Creation Cards: A Culturally Sensitive Tool for Eliciting Values. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
8. Alves, V., & Roque, L. (2011). An inspection on a deck for sound design in games. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th Audio Mostly Conference: A Conference on Interaction with Sound.
9. Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., Fourney, A., Nushi, B., Collisson, P., . . . Inkpen, K. (2019). Guidelines for human-AI interaction. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems.
10. Andrei Herasimchuk, L. W., Juhan Sonin,Dirk Knemeyer. (2012). Design Axioms. Retrieved from http://designaxioms.com/index.php?view=grid
11. Barrett-Forrest, B. (2014). The Design Deck. Retrieved from https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/benbf/the-design-deck-graphic-design-playing-cards
12. Bekker, T., & Antle, A. N. (2011). Developmentally situated design (DSD) making theoretical knowledge accessible to designers of children's technology. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
13. Bornoe, N., Bruun, A., & Stage, J. (2016). Facilitating redesign with design cards: experiences with novice designers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction.
14. Both, T., & Baggereor, D. (2013). Design thinking bootcamp bootleg. In: Stanford: Stanford University.
15. Brown, D. (2013). Surviving Design Projects. Retrieved from https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/surviving-design-projects-booster-series-1
16. Candy, S., & Watson, J. (2015). The thing from the future. The APF methods anthologyLondon: Association of Professional Futurists.
17. Caraban, A., Konstantinou, L., & Karapanos, E. (2020). The Nudge Deck: A Design Support Tool for Technology-Mediated Nudging. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference.
18. Carneiro, G., Barros, G., & Costa, C. Z. (2012). ilo Cards: A tool to support the design of interactive artifacts.
19. Clatworthy, S. (2010). Service innovation through touch-points: the AT-ONE touch-point cards. Design support at the front end of the New Service Development (NSD) process, 188.
20. Colusso, L., Do, T., & Hsieh, G. (2018). Behavior Change Design Sprints. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference.
21. Daly, S. R., Yilmaz, S., Christian, J. L., Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2012). Design heuristics in engineering concept generation.
22. Deng, Y., Antle, A. N., & Neustaedter, C. (2014). Tango cards: a card-based design tool for informing the design of tangible learning games. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems.
23. Denning, T., Friedman, B., & Kohno, T. (2013). The Security Cards: A Security Threat Brainstorming Toolkit. Univ. of Washington, http://securitycards. cs. washington. edu.
24. Design Council. What is the framework for innovation? Design Council's evolved Double Diamond. Retrieved from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/what-framework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond
25. Design Council. (2005). The ‘double diamond’design process model. Design Council.
26. Designing Out Crime research centre (DOC). (2011). DOC Method Cards. Retrieved from http://designingoutcrime.com/about/?fbclid=IwAR2BYBtm6_wrqbDpYPVyGQQHsevTuxT0BBlcPlykLZzBECh4FUBEM_VO1NI
27. DIOPD (Delft Institute of Positive Design). (2015). SIM Cards. Retrieved from https://www.designwithmeaning.org/
28. Dove, G., & Fayard, A.-L. (2020). Monsters, Metaphors, and Machine Learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
29. Eno, B., & Schmidt, P. (1975). Oblique strategies. Opal.(Limited edition, boxed set of cards.)[rMAB].
30. Fedosov, A., Kitazaki, M., Odom, W., & Langheinrich, M. (2019). Sharing economy design cards. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
31. Fischer, G., & Scharff, E. (2000). Meta-design: design for designers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques.
32. Foresight, A. (2019). Drivers of change. In.
33. Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. (2012). The envisioning cards: a toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems.
34. Gioia, S. (2016). Barriers to Change Card Deck. Retrieved from https://xplane.com/i-dont-want-to-change-you-a-love-letter-and-a-card-deck/
35. Hasling, K. M., & Ræbild, U. (2017). Sustainability Cards: design for longevity. Paper presented at the PLATE 2017: Product Lifetimes and the Enviroment.
36. Hornecker, E. (2010). Creative idea exploration within the structure of a guiding framework: the card brainstorming game. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction.
37. IDEO. (2019). IDEO AI & Etics Cards. Retrieved from https://www.ideo.com/post/ai-ethics-collaborative-activities-for-designers
38. IDEO. (2003). IDEO Method Cards: 51 ways to inspire design: William Stout.
39. Juan, Y.-K., Cheng, Y.-C., & Perng, Y.-H. (2019). Preparations for Developing a World Design Capital: The Case of Taipei City Transformation Process in Taiwan. Sustainability, 11(21), 6064.
40. Kwiatkowska, J., Szóstek, A., & Lamas, D. (2014). (Un) structured sources of inspiration: comparing the effects of game-like cards and design cards on creativity in co-design process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers-Volume 1.
41. Lockton, D., Harrison, D., & Stanton, N. A. . (2010). The Design with Intent Method: A design tool for influencing user behaviour. . Applied Ergonomics, 41(3).
42. Lockton, D., & Lallemand, C. (2020). Meeting Designers Where They Are: Using Industry Events as a Research Venue for HCI and Design Methods Development. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
43. Lockton, D., Singh, D., Sabnis, S., Chou, M., Foley, S., & Pantoja, A. (2019). New Metaphors: A Workshop Method for Generating Ideas and Reframing Problems in Design and Beyond. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 319-332).
44. Logler, N., Yoo, D., & Friedman, B. (2018). Metaphor cards: A how-to-guide for making and using a generative metaphorical design toolkit. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference.
45. Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
46. Lucero, A., & Arrasvuori, J. (2010). PLEX Cards: a source of inspiration when designing for playfulness. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Fun and Games.
47. Microsoft. (2019). Guideline for Human-AI Interaction. Retrieved from https://aidemos.microsoft.com/guidelines-for-human-ai-interaction/demo
48. Mitchell, V., Wilson, G., Leder Mackley, K., Pink, S., Buswell, R., & Bhamra, T. Home Life Insight Cards.
49. Möller, O. (2010). MethodKit. Retrieved from https://methodkit.com
50. Mueller, F., Gibbs, M. R., Vetere, F., & Edge, D. (2014). Supporting the creative game design process with exertion cards. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
51. Near Future Laboratory. (2014). Design Fiction Product Design Kit. Retrieved from https://nearfuturelaboratory.myshopify.com/products/design-fiction-product-design-work-kit
52. Nessler, D. (2018). How to apply a design thinking, HCD, UX or any creative process from scratch — Revised & New Version. Retrieved from https://uxdesign.cc/how-to-solve-problems-applying-a-uxdesign-designthinking-hcd-or-any-design-process-from-scratch-v2-aa16e2dd550b
53. Pascale, M. d. (2012). Intùiti Creative Cards. Retrieved from https://intuiti.it/
54. Pfarr., N. (2013). Behavior Change Strategy Cards. Retrieved from https://www.artefactgroup.com/case-studies/behavior-change-strategy-cards/#:~:text=The%20Behavior%20Change%20Strategy%20Cards,positive%20behavior%20change%20more%20effectively.
55. Rothstein, A. (2012). White paper: Open deck card standard. Poszu. In.
56. Roy, R., & Warren, J. P. (2019). Card-based design tools: a review and analysis of 155 card decks for designers and designing. Design Studies, 63, 125-154.
57. Sound Design Deck. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.soundingames.com/index.php?title=All_Cards
58. SUTD-MIT International Design Centre (IDC) (2013). SUTD-MIT Design Methods Cards. Retrieved from https://idc.sutd.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2017/10/Design-Method-Cards_SUTDMITIDC-2017.pdf
59. The Group Pattern Language Project. (2012). The Group Work Deck. Retrieved from https://groupworksdeck.org/deck
60. Tseng, Y.-C. (2020). How Design with Intent Cards Facilitate Behavioral Design Ideation for Humanities, Design, and Engineering Students. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 12192 LNCS, 183-199. Retrieved from 10.1007/978-3-030-49788-0_14
61. UI Shop. (2015). Persuasive Patterns Card Deck. Retrieved from https://shop.ui-patterns.com/product/persuasive-patterns-card-deck/?utm_source=cards_ui_patterns_com&utm_medium=cards_frontpage_order_button&utm_campaign=new_cards_frontpage&v=3d9975706be3
62. Wirfs-Brock, J., Mennicken, S., & Thom, J. (2020). Giving Voice to Silent Data: Designing with Personal Music Listening History. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
63. Wölfel, C., & Merritt, T. (2013). Method card design dimensions: A survey of card-based design tools. Paper presented at the IFIP conference on human-computer interaction.
64. Yoon, J., Desmet, P. M., & Pohlmeyer, A. E. (2016). Developing usage guidelines for a card-based design tool: A case of the positive emotional granularity cards. Archives of Design Research, 29(4), 5-18.