隨著當今資訊科技與技術進化，資訊搜尋與獲取的媒介依據過去使用者經驗，演化為易用、好用，且高度一致性的介面。同時為了讓使用者能夠根據過去使用經驗來操作新的頁面，網頁設計則會依循過去的介面設計加以規劃排列，因此導致當前多數介面設計與架構皆如出一轍，與介面相關的創新功能設計則日漸減少。

為打破傳統介面之外部一致性，本研究探討經過視覺複雜設計的介面與功能元件，即如此有別過去設計框架之頁面是否會引發使用者的感知新穎性，並進而對其搜尋行為與使用者經驗造成影響與轉變。於正式研究前，先行 5 人小樣本分析，而正式實驗共分為兩階段，第一階段為操作實驗與訪談，本研究共招募了 10 位研究參與者，並透過半結構式訪談探究參與者於三項不同視覺複雜度的搜尋引擎中，分別對其感知新穎性、搜尋行為與使用者經驗的轉變；第二階段為問卷調查，本研究共回收了 121 份問卷，藉以從中瞭解相異之視覺複雜度的介面，在不同搜尋任務與情境下，對受試者之感知新穎性與使用者經驗的影響。

綜合本研究資料之分析顯示，研究參與者在操作相異視覺複雜度之搜尋引擎的歷程中會引發其感知新穎性，並間接對「搜尋行為」與「使用者經驗」造成轉變，進而使參與者對整體搜尋歷程發展不同的使用體驗與偏好。對此，本研究將進一步提出增進介面新穎設計對使用者帶來的轉變、影響，以及改善之處。

With the evolution of today’s information technology, the medium of information search and acquisition has evolved into an easy-to-use, useful and highly consistent interface based on past user experience. At the same time, in order to enable users to operate new pages based on past experience, web design is planned and arranged following the past interface design, resulting in the similarity of most of the interface design and structure, while innovation regarding interface-related functions is gradually reduced.

To challenge the external consistency of traditional interfaces, this study explores whether novel functional designs that are different from past interface architectures will affect users’ search behavior and user experience. This study consisted of two phases. In the first phase, a combination of experimental manipulation and semi-structured interview were used to explore the perceived novelty, search behavior, and user experience of 10 research participants when using three different search engines with varying levels of visual complexity. In the second phase, a survey was conducted and 121 responsese were collected to investigate the effects of interfaces with different levels of visual complexity on perceived novelty and user experience of the participants under various search tasks and contexts.

After clarifying and understanding the changes in search behavior, user experience and preference of particpants when operating search engines with different levels of complexity, the present study further proposes to enhance the changes brought by the novel design of the interface to users.

目錄
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 5
1.3 研究問題 6
1.4 研究範圍與限制 7
第二章 文獻探討 9
2.1 介面之視覺複雜度 9
2.2 搜尋行為 13
2.3 搜尋任務 19
2.4 感知新穎性 22
2.5 易用性、有用性、滿意度與使用者經驗 27
第三章 研究方法與程序 39
3.1 研究架構 40
3.2 實驗設計 43
3.3 研究變數之定義操作方式 45
3.3.1 介面之視覺複雜程度的定義與操作方式 45
3.3.2 搜尋行為與使用者經驗的定義與操作方式 47
3.3.3 感知新穎性的定義與操作方式 50
3.3.4 搜尋任務的定義與操作方式 53
3.4 實驗工具與介面內容發展 55
3.4.1 搜尋介面之視覺複雜程度的設計依據 57
3.4.2 搜尋介面之搜尋內容編寫、分類與排列設計 70
3.4.3 搜尋任務設計與流程 77
3.4.4 前導研究之介面與內容設計調整 81
3.5 研究實驗之流程 95
3.5.1 實驗情境 99
3.5.2 正式實驗 100
第四章 相異視覺複雜程度之搜尋引擎設計實驗結果 102
4.1 搜尋引擎系統與介面之受試者問卷統計分析結果 102
4.1.1 相異的視覺複雜度之介面會影響使用者的感知新穎性 108
4.1.2使用者於不同視覺複雜程度的介面進行操作時，搜尋任務不會對其感知新穎性造成不同程度的影響 112
4.1.3 使用者於不同視覺複雜程度的介面進行搜尋任務時，感知新穎性會對其使用者經驗造成不同程度的影響 115
4.2 搜尋引擎系統與介面之受訪者實驗訪談分析結果 120
4.2.1 相異之視覺複雜度的介面對使用者感知新穎性造成之影響 123
4.2.2 使用者於不同視覺複雜程度的介面進行搜尋任務時，感知新穎性對其搜尋行為造成不同程度之影響 134
4.2.3 使用者於不同視覺複雜程度的介面進行搜尋任務時，感知新穎性會對其使用者經驗造成不同程度之影響 167
4.2.4 使用者於不同視覺複雜程度的介面進行搜尋任務時，感知新穎性會引發其搜尋行為與使用感受兩者間的交互影響 178
4.2.5 使用者會依據不同搜尋情境與時機判定適宜的視覺複雜程度之搜尋引擎，並根據過去使用經驗對視覺複雜設計的搜尋引擎提出修改建議 183
第五章 研究結論與建議 188
5.1 研究結論與討論 188
5.1.1 相異視覺複雜度之介面的設計基準與影響 188
5.1.2 感知新穎性對搜尋行為造成之影響與後續發展的進程 189
5.1.3 感知新穎性拓展使用者經驗之影響 194
5.2 未來發展與建議 195
5.2.1 研究參與者之感知新穎性的不同立足點 195
5.2.2 搜尋任務對搜尋行為的衍生影響 196
5.2.3 著重網頁功能設計，以提升介面之視覺複雜程度的設計幅度與維度 198
參考文獻 201
英文部分 201
中文部分 211
附錄 212
附錄一 正式問卷 212

英文部分
Attneave, F. (1957). Physical determinants of the judged complexity of shapes. Journal of experimental Psychology, 53(4), 221.
Anick, P. (2003, July). Using terminological feedback for web search refinement: a log-based study. In Proceedings of the 26th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in informaion retrieval (pp. 88-95).
Azzopardi, L., Kelly, D., & Brennan, K. (2013, July). How query cost affects search behavior. In Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp. 23-32).
Ang, S. H., Lee, Y. H., & Leong, S. M. (2007). The ad novelty cube: Conceptualization and initial validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(4), p. 220-232.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971c). Information, uncertainty, redundancy, aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Meredith Corporation.
Browne, G. J., & Pitts, M. G. (2004). Stopping rule use during information search in design problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(2), 208-224.
Byström, K., & Hansen, P. (2005). Conceptual framework for tasks in information studies. Journal of the American Society for Information science and Technology, 56(10), 1050-1061.
Broder, A. (2002, September). A taxonomy of web search. In ACM Sigir forum (Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 3-10). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Burke, L. A., & James, K. E. (2008). PowerPoint-based lectures in business education: An empirical investigation of student-perceived novelty and effectiveness. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(3), 277-296.
Blijlevens, J., Creusen, M. E., & Schoormans, J. P. (2009). How consumers perceive product appearance: The identification of three product appearance attributes. International Journal of design, 3(3), 27-35.
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & psychophysics, 8(5), 279-286.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. New York, NY: Wiley.
Blijlevens, J., Carbon, C. C., Mugge, R., & Schoormans, J. P. (2012). Aesthetic appraisal of product designs: Independent effects of typicality and arousal. British Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 44-57.
Bargas-Avila, J. A., & Hornbæk, K. (2011, May). Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2689-2698).
Berlyne, D. E. (1966). Curiosity and Exploration: Animals spend much of their time seeking stimuli whose significance raises problems for psychology. Science, 153(3731), 25-33.
Bohme, R. S. (1980). Exposure and stimulus complexity as determinants of preference for auditory stimuli. The Ohio State University.
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.
Chipman, S. F. (1977). Complexity and structure in visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106(3), 269.
Chipman, S. F., & Mendelson, M. J. (1979). Influence of six types of visual structure on complexity judgments in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5(2), 365.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 22(14), 1111-1132.
Dostert, M., & Kelly, D. (2009, July). Users' stopping behaviors and estimates of recall. In Proceedings of the 32nd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp. 820-821).
Förster, J., Liberman, N., & Shapira, O. (2009). Preparing for novel versus familiar events: Shifts in global and local processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 383-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015748
Förster, J., Marguc, J., & Gillebaart, M. (2010). Novelty categorization theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(9), 736-755.
Geissler, G. L., Zinkhan, G. M., & Watson, R. T. (2006). The influence of home page complexity on consumer attention, attitudes, and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 69-80.
Gill, T. G., & Hicks, R. C. (2006). Task complexity and informing science: A synthesis. Informing Science, 9, 1.
Gupta, M., & Gramopadhye, A. K. (1995). An evaluation of different navigational tools in using hypertext. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 29(1-4), 437-441.
Grigorovici, D., Constantin, C., & Lindsay, C. (2004). Novelty, habituation or structural features? A test of competing explanations for the cognitive and attitudinal effects of animated 3D advertising on the web. In Proceedings of the Conference-American Academy of Advertising (pp. 18-34). Pullman, WA; American Academy of Advertising; 1999.
Gao, M., Kortum, P., & Oswald, F. (2018, September). Psychometric evaluation of the use (usefulness, satisfaction, and ease of use) questionnaire for reliability and validity. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 1414-1418). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Hogeboom, M., & van Leeuwen, C. (1997). Visual search strategy and perceptual organization covary with individual preference and structural complexity. Acta Psychologica, 95(2), 141-164.
Heckhausen, H. (1964). Complexity in perception: Phenomenal criteria and information theoretic calculus—A note on D. Berlynes" Complexity Effects.".
Hall, A. C. (1969). Measures of the complexity of random black and white and coloured stimuli. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 29(3), 773-774.
Huang, J., & Efthimiadis, E. N. (2009, November). Analyzing and evaluating query reformulation strategies in web search logs. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and Knowledge Management (pp. 77-86).
Hassan, A., Shi, X., Craswell, N., & Ramsey, B. (2013, October). Beyond clicks: query reformulation as a predictor of search satisfaction. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management (pp. 2019-2028).
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of marketing, 60(3), 50-68.
Hsiao, K. A., & Chen, L. L. (2006). Fundamental dimensions of affective responses to product shapes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(6), 553-564.
Hekkert, P., & Van Wieringen, P. C. (1990). Complexity and prototypicality as determinants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 81(4), 483-495.
Hassenzahl, M. (2007). The hedonic/pragmatic model of user experience. Towards a UX manifesto, 10, 2007.
Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Aesthetics in interactive products: Correlates and consequences of beauty. In Product experience (pp. 287-302). Elsevier.
ISO 9241-210:2010(en) 2010. Ergonomics of human-system interaction-Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Standard. International Organization for Standardization, Brussels.
ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance on usability. International Standardization Organization (ISO), Geneva (1998, 2015)
Jansen, B. J., & Spink, A. (2006). How are we searching the World Wide Web? A comparison of nine search engine transaction logs. Information Processing & Management, 42(1), 248-263.
Jansen, B. J., Spink, A., & Ozmultu, C. (2000). Use of query reformulation and relevance feedback by Web users. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 10(4), 317-328.
King, A. J., Lazard, A. J., & White, S. R. (2020). The influence of visual complexity on initial user impressions: Testing the persuasive model of web design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 39(5), 497-510.
Kraft, D. H., & Lee, T. (1979). Stopping rules and their effect on expected search length. Information Processing & Management, 15(1), 47-58.
Kotamraju, N. P., & van der Geest, T. M. (2012). The tension between user-centred design and e-government services. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(3), 261-273.
Kuniavsky, Mike (2010), Smart Things: Ubiquitous Computing User Experience Design. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kauffman Elsevier.
Kirakowski, J. (1996). The software usability measurement inventory: background and usage. Usability evaluation in industry, 169-178.
Lee, H., Ali, N. M., & Hardman, L. (2013). Designing interactive applications to support novel activities. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2013, 4-4.
Lund, A. M. (2001). Measuring usability with the use questionnaire12. Usability interface, 8(2), 3-6.
Lorigo, L., Haridasan, M., Brynjarsdóttir, H., Xia, L., Joachims, T., Gay, G., ... & Pan, B. (2008). Eye tracking and online search: Lessons learned and challenges ahead. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(7), 1041-1052.
Li, Y. (2010). An exploration of the relationships between work tasks and users' interaction performance. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1-9.
Lindgaard, G., & Dudek, C. (2003). What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction?. Interacting with computers, 15(3), 429-452.
Lavie, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60(3), 269-298.
Lavie, T., Oron-Gilad, T., & Meyer, J. (2011). Aesthetics and usability of in-vehicle navigation displays. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(1-2), 80-99.
Laugwitz, B., Schrepp, M., & Held, T. (2006). Konstruktion eines Fragebogens zur Messung der User Experience von Softwareprodukten. In Mensch & Computer (pp. 125-134).
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75-98.
Lee, D., & LaRose, R. (2007). A socio-cognitive model of video game usage. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(4), 632-650.
McCay‐Peet, L., & Toms, E. G. (2015). Investigating serendipity: How it unfolds and what may influence it. Journal of the Association for Information Science and technology, 66(7), 1463-1476.
Minge, M., Thüring, M., & Wagner, I. (2016, September). Developing and validating an English version of the meCUE questionnaire for measuring user experience. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting(Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 2063-2067). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Minge, M., & Thüring, M. (2018). Hedonic and pragmatic halo effects at early stages of user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 109, 13-25.
Mahlke, S., Lemke, I., & Thüring, M. (2007). The diversity of non-instrumental qualities in human-technology interaction. Mmi-Interaktiv, 13, 55-64.
Mahlke, S. (2008). HF: User Experience of Interaction with Technical Systems: Theories, Methods, Empirical Results and Their Application to the Development of Interactive Systems. VDM Publishing.
Magni, M., Taylor, M. S., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). ‘To play or not to play’: A cross-temporal investigation using hedonic and instrumental perspectives to explain user intentions to explore a technology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(9), 572-588.
Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Civitas Books.
Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. Usability Inspection Mehods.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Diego, US.
Pieters, R., Wedel, M., & Batra, R. (2010). The stopping power of advertising: Measures and effects of visual complexity. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 48-60.
Rafaeli, A., & Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (2004). Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism of physical artifacts as triggers of emotion. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(1), 91-112.
Rieh, S. Y. (2006). Analysis of multiple query reformulations on the web: The interactive information retrieval context. Information Processing & Management, 42(3), 751-768.
Rose, D. E., & Levinson, D. 2004. Understanding user goals in Web search. Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web. (2004), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1145/988672.988675.
Reisenzein, R., Meyer, W. U., & Schützwohl, A. (1996). Reactions to surprising events: A paradigm for emotion research. In Proceedings of the 9th conference of the International Society for Research on Emotions (pp. 292-296). Toronto: ISRE.
Rich, B. R. (1995). Clarence Leonard (Kelly) Johnson 1910-1990: a biographical memoir. Biographical Memoirs, 67, 221-241.
Roto, V.: User experience from product creation perspective. In: Law, E., Vermeeren, A., Hassenzahl, M., Blythe, M. (eds) Towards a UX Manifesto – Proceedings of a Cost-Affiliated Workshop on HCI 2008, pp. 31-34. (2007)
Simon, H. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial (1st ed). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shneiderman, B. (1992). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction.
Strother, L., & Kubovy, M. (2003). Perceived complexity and the grouping effect in band patterns. Acta Psychologica, 114(3), 229-244.
Solomon, M.R. (2018), Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being, Prentice Hall, New York.
Saastamoinen, M., Kumpulainen, S., & Järvelin, K. (2012, August). Task complexity and information searching in administrative tasks revisited. In Proceedings of the 4th Information Interaction in Context Symposium (pp. 204-213).
Shulman, J. L., Barber, E., & Merton, R. K. (2011). The travels and adventures of Serendipity: a study in sociological semantics and the sociology of science. Princeton University Press.
Schlosser, A. E., & Kanfer, A. (2001). Impact of product interactivity on searchers’ and browsers’ judgments: Implications for commercial web site effectiveness. In Society for Consumer Psychology Winter Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. February (pp. 15-17).
Sheinin, D. A., Varki, S., & Ashley, C. (2011). The differential effect of ad novelty and message usefulness on brand judgments. Journal of Advertising, 40(3), 5-18.
Smith, R. E., MacKenzie, S. B., Yang, X., Buchholz, L. M., & Darley, W. K. (2007). Modeling the determinants and effects of creativity in advertising. Marketing Science, 26(6), 819-833.
Shackel, B., & Richardson, S. J. (Eds.). (1991). Human factors for informatics usability. Cambridge university press.
Schrepp, M., Hinderks, A., & Thomaschewski, J. (2017). Design and evaluation of a short version of the user experience questionnaire (UEQ-S). International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 4 (6), 103-108.
Toms, E. G., & Freund, L. (2009, July). Predicting stopping behaviour: A preliminary analysis. In Proceedings of the 32nd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp. 750-751).
Toms, E. G. (2011). Task-based information searching and retrieval. 43-60.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2013). Engagement with novel virtual environments: The role of perceived novelty and flow in the development of the deficient self-regulation of Internet use and media habits. Human Communication Research, 39(3), 365-393.
Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of. Quantitative Information, 13.
Thüring, M., & Mahlke, S. (2007). Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human–technology interaction. International Journal of Psychology, 42(4), 253-264.
Vashisht, D. (2015). Effect of advergames on customers brand memory persuasive intent and brand attitude an empirical study in Indian context.
Wildemuth, B. M., & Freund, L. (2012, October). Assigning search tasks designed to elicit exploratory search behaviors. In Proceedings of the symposium on human-computer interaction and information retrieval (pp. 1-10).
Whitaker, L. A. (1998). Human navigation. In Forsythe, C., Grose, E. & Ratner, J. (Eds.) Human Factors and Web Development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Wan, F., Nan, N., & Smith, M. (2009). Consumers' optimal experience on commercial web sites: A congruency effect of web atmospheric design and consumers' surfing goal. In Contemporary research in e-branding (pp. 78-94). IGI Global.
Wells, J. D., Campbell, D. E., Valacich, J. S., & Featherman, M. (2010). The effect of perceived novelty on the adoption of information technology innovations: a risk/reward perspective. Decision Sciences, 41(4), 813-843.
Wentworth, N., & Witryol, S. L. (1983). Is variety the better part of novelty?. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 142(1), 3-15.
Zach, L. (2005). When is “enough” enough? Modeling the information‐seeking and stopping behavior of senior arts administrators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 23-35.

中文部分
整體使用現況:網民輪廓. (2020). 財團法人台灣網路資訊中心. https://report.twnic.tw/2020/TrendAnalysis_internetUsage.html