跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.204.180.223) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/31 16:41
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:楊斯嵐
研究生(外文):Szu-LanYang
論文名稱:學童專用指向設備人因設計模式
論文名稱(外文):Ergonomics-oriented Schoolchildren’s Pointing Device Development Model
指導教授:賴新喜賴新喜引用關係
指導教授(外文):Hsin-His Lai
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:工業設計學系碩博士班
學門:設計學門
學類:產品設計學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:英文
論文頁數:114
中文關鍵詞:指向設備學童產品設計開發模式ESPDDMSDPD
外文關鍵詞:pointing deviceschoolchildrenproduct designmodel developmentESPDDMSDPD
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:353
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:111
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
隨著科技技術的普及,資訊設備深入生活各個層面,其中包含對學童的學習與遊戲方式產生改變。學童在成長過程會歷經不同的的生理發展與不同的使用需求,然而學童人因產品因涉及學童的人因特性而更形複雜,造成設備設計師不願投入相關開發。對於學童專用指用指向設備的研究,需要建構一個能供設計師依循的有效設計開發流程。
本論文提出一種適用於學童的人因指向設備開發流程(ESPDDM),並依此模式進行新式設備的開發做為驗証。
ESPDDM主要包含三個步驟。首先要幫助設計團隊找出設計法則,其中包含收集並集及分析現有產品、擇定具代表性產品、使用性測試、產生設計需求。其次,產品設計開發,其中包含草圖發展、建構3D模型、手工原型、功能模型。最後進行驗証評估,包含擇定受測者、設定實驗環境、規劃實驗流程、產生產品特性報告。我們依循ESPDDM程序,開發新式的學童人因指向設備(SDPD)。
SDPD的操作概念來自學童在沙地作畫,將學童在沙地作畫的動作,轉換為對螢幕游標的控制。系統主要結構為一平行移動面,學童透過移動面產生對應的游標動作訊號。SDPD依循ESPDDM進行開發,並証驗優於非以ESPDDM進行開發的傳統滑鼠,証實該開發程序的有效性。
Due to the increased popularity of information technology, information devices have infiltrated all aspects of life. They have even changed the way schoolchildren learn and play games. Pointing devices are the most common devices used to interact with computers and information equipment. The design of ergonomic products for children is complicated by children’s physical characteristics. Few designers are willing to invest in this type of development. Designers require an effective procedure for the development of pointing devices designed specifically for schoolchildren.
This study constructed a product development model, ESPDDM (Ergonomics-oriented Schoolchildren’s Pointing Device Development Model) and created a new pointing device based on this model for verification.
ESPDDM consists of three main phases. The first phase guides development teams in the establishment of design principles related to pointing devices for schoolchildren. This phase includes four sub-phases: collection and analysis of existing products, selection of representative products, a usability test, and establishment of design requirements. The second phase focuses on product development. It includes four sub-phases: rough sketching, three-dimensional modeling, crafting and styling of mockups, and construction of a functional prototype. Verification and evaluation is performed during the last phase. This includes determination of participants, organization of apparatus, planning of experimental procedures, and production of an evaluation report. We employed this development model in our creation of the Sand Draw Pointing Device (SDPD) for verification.
We based the SDPD on the motions children use to draw in sand. We converted these motions into a method used to control onscreen cursors. The primary structure of the system consists of a parallel moving panel upon which cursor motion signals that correspond to the user’s motions are created. In operational performance and physiological measurement, this device demonstrated superior performance to a conventional mouse. This proves that the development procedures employed in ESPDDM were effective.
CONTENTS
Abstract I
Acknowledgement IV
Contents V
List of Figures VIII
List of Tables X
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation and background 1
1.2 Research purpose 3
1.3 Organization of the dissertation 5
Chapter 2 Literature Review 8
2.1 Ergonomically-oriented product design 8
2.1.1 Major trends in ergonomics research 8
2.1.2 Ergonomic product design based on different perspectives 10
2.2 Considerations for children’s use of information technology 12
2.2.1 Children's exposure to information technology 12
2.2.2 Ergonomic considerations for children’s use of information technology 14
2.2.3 Developmental progress of children 16
2.3 Design issues of children’s pointing device 19
2.3.1 Types of interaction that employ pointing devices 19
2.3.2 Design issues of the user interface 22
2.3.3 Form and dimensions of the pointing devices 23
Chapter 3 Implementation Procedures 25
3.1 ESPDDM(Ergonomics-oriented Schoolchildren’s Pointing Device Development Model) 25
3.2 Establishment of design requirements 28
3.2.1 Collection and analysis of existing products 28
3.2.2 Selection of representative products 29
3.2.3 Usability test 30
3.2.4 Determination of design requirements 30
3.3. Conceptual design developments 32
3.3.1 Draft proposal 32
3.3.2 3D modeling 33
3.3.3 Crafting of styling mockups 33
3.3.4 Construction of a functional prototype 34
3.4 Ergonomic evaluation of design prototype 35
3.4.1 Determination of participants 35
3.4.2 Organization of the apparatus 36
3.4.3 Planning of experimental procedures 37
3.4.3.1 Operational performance 37
3.4.3.2 Physiological measurement 38
3.4.3.3 Participants’ subjective feelings 38
3.4.4 Evaluation report 39
Chapter 4 Design 40
4.1 Product scope 40
4.1.1 Collection and analysis of existing products 40
4.1.2 Selection of representative products 44
4.2 Novelty of the design 46
4.2.1 Usability test 46
4.2.2 Establishment of design requirements 48
4.3 Conceptual design development 50
4.3.1 Design Alternatives 50
4.3.1.1 Concept 50
4.3.1.2 Features 51
4.3.1.3 Core 52
4.3.2 3D modeling 52
4.3.3 Styling mockups 54
4.3.4 Functional prototype 55
Chapter 5 Evaluation 58
5.1 Organization 58
5.1.1 Determination of participants 58
5.1.2 Apparatus 59
5.2 Experimental procedures 62
5.2.1 Aiming task 62
5.2.2 Moving task 63
5.2.3 Posture analysis 65
5.2.4 Participants’ subjective satisfaction 66
5.3 Experimental results 68
5.3.1 Aiming task results 68
5.3.1.1 Distance results 68
5.3.1.2 Direction results 69
5.3.2 Moving task results 70
5.3.2.1 Direction results 72
5.3.2.2 Diagonal and crosswise motion results 73
5.3.2.3 Circularity and linear operations 74
5.3.3 Posture analysis results 75
5.3.3.1 Horizontal movements 76
5.3.3.2 Vertical movements 78
5.3.4 User Satisfaction 80
5.3.4.1 Participants’ satisfaction during operation 80
5.3.4.2 Participants’ satisfaction with physiological feelings 83
5.4 Discussion and conclusions based on SDPD evaluation 86
5.4.1 Discussion 86
5.4.1.1 Aiming task 86
5.4.1.2 Moving task 87
5.4.1.3 Posture 88
5.4.1.4 Satisfaction 89
5.4.2 Conclusions 90
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Suggestions 91
6.1 Conclusions 91
6.2 Suggestions 93
References 94
Appendix I:Data for performance verification of SDPD 100
Appendix II: Sheets for subjective preference rating 114

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1. Research structure of this study. 5
Fig. 2. The three phases of ESPDDM 26
Fig. 3. Typical pointing devices.. 42
Fig. 4. Five selected representative samples for usability test. 44
Fig. 5. Concept of SDPD, drawing in the sand. 51
Fig. 6. Three way 2d view and 3D model of the SDPD. 53
Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of the method of operation. 54
Fig. 8. Exploded drawing of SDPD. 56
Fig. 9. Experimental setup. 60
Fig. 10. Setting of different targets in the aiming task. 62
Fig. 11. Contour of the moving task. 64
Fig. 12. Angle of wrist. 65
Fig. 13. Aiming task results for distance. 69
Fig. 14. Aiming task result for direction. 70
Fig. 15. Turns during trajectorys. 71
Fig. 16. Wrist position during horizontal movements. 75
Fig. 17. Wrist position during vertical movements. 76
Fig. 18. Participants’ satisfaction during aiming task. 80
Fig. 19. Participants’ satisfaction during moving task. 81
Fig. 20. Participants’ satisfaction during handling task. 82
Fig. 21. Participants’ satisfaction with performance. 82
Fig. 22. Participants’ satisfaction with thumb comfort. 83
Fig. 23. Participants’ satisfaction with index finger comfort. 84
Fig. 24. Participants’ satisfaction with middle finger comfort. 85
Fig. 25. Participants’ satisfaction with wrist comfort. 85

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Comparison of five types of pointing devices. 45
Table 2 Summary of the results of the usability test 48
Table 3 Mean clicking time of aiming task 68
Table 4 Number of turns during trajectories in all directions 71
Table 5 Number of turns during trajectories in diagonal and crosswise motions 73
Table 6 Number of turns during circular and linear trajectories 74
Table 7 Horizontal movements 76
Table 8 Horizontal movements in comparison to rest position 77
Table 9 Vertical movements 79
Table 10 Vertical movements in comparison to rest position 79
Akamatsu, M., & Sato, S. (1994). Amilit-multi-modal mouse with tactile and force feedback. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(443-453).
Albert, A. E. (1982). The effect of graphic input device on performance in a cursor positioning task. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 26th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA.
Alison, C. S., Perlmutter, M., & Friedman, S. (1988). Lifelong Human Development. New York: John Wiley &Sons.
Alloway, N. (1994). Young Children’s preferred option and efficiency of use of input device. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 17(1), 104-110.
Barendregt, W., & Bekker, M. M. (2011). Children may expect drag-and-drop instead of point-and-click. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Barker, D. L. (1991). Gender differences between graphical user interfaces and command line interfaces in computer instruction: ERIC Document Reproduction Sevice.
Barrero, M., & Hedge, A. (2002). Computer environments for children: A review of design issues. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 18(2), 227-237.
Bienkowski, M., Haertel, G., Adamson, F., & Fujii, R. (2007). Studying tablet pc use in Singapore schools: Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Briggs, A., Straker, L., & Greig, A. (2004). Upper quadrant postural changes of school children in response to interaction with different information technologies. Ergonomics, 47(7), 790 - 819.
Card, S. K., English, W. K., & Burr, B. J. (1978). Evaluation of mouse, rate-contrrolled isometric joystick, step keys and text keys fortext seletion on a CRT. Ergonomics, 21(8), 601-613.
Chapanis, A. (1995). Ergonomics in product development: a personal view. Ergonomics, 38(8), 1625-1638.
Charness, N., Bosman, A. E., & Elliott, G. R. (1995). Senior friendly input devices: Is the pen mightier than the mouse? Paper presented at the 103rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association Meeting, New York, USA.
Chienhsu, C., & Chunchin, S. (2011). Developing an augmented painting interface for enhancing children painting experience. International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications, 5(1), 319-327.
Clements, D. H. (1987). Computer and young children: Areview of research. Young Children, 43(1), 34-44.
Crook, C. (1992). Young children's skill in using a mouse to control a graphical computer interface. Computers & Education, 19(3), 199-207.
Dembe, A. E., Erickson, J. B., Delbos, R. G., & Banks, S. M. (2005). The impact of overtime and long work hours on occupational injuries and illnesses: new evidence from the United States. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62, 588-597.
Dennerlein, J. T., & Yang, M. C. (2001). Haptic force-feedback devices for the office computer: performance and musculoskeletal loading issues. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43(2), 278-286.
Donker, A., & Reitsma, P. (2007). Young children's ability to use a computer mouse. Computers & Education, 48(4), 602-617.
Donker, A., & Reitsma, P. (2007a). Aiming and clicking in young children's use of the computer mouse. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 2863-2874.
Donker, A., & Reitsma, P. (2007b). Drag-and-drop errors in young children's use of the mouse. Interacting with Computers, 19(2), 257-266.
Donker, A., & Reitsma, P. (2007c). Young children's ability to use a computer mouse. Computers & Education, 48(4), 602-617.
Feyen, R., Liu, Y., Chaffin, D., Jimmerson, G., & Joseph, B. (2000). Computer-aided ergonomics: a case study of incorporating ergonomics analyses into workplace design. Applied Ergonomics, 31(3), 291-300.
Greig, A. M., Straker, L. M., & Briggs, A. M. (2005). Cervical erector spinae and upper trapezius muscle activity in children using different information technologies. Physiotherapy, 91(2), 119-126.
Grunzweil, B., & Haller, M. (2009). Analyzing interaction techniques using mouse and keyboard for preschool children. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th Symposium of the Workgroup Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Engineering of the Austrian Computer Society on HCI and Usability for e-Inclusion, Linz, Austria.
Haller, R., Mutschler, H., & Voss, M. (1984). Comparison of input devices for correction of typing erreor in office system. Interact, 84, 218-223.
Harris, C., & Straker, L. (2000). Survey of physical ergonomics issues associated with school childrens' use of laptop computers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26(3), 337-346.
Harris, C., Straker, L., Pollock, C., & Trinidad, S. (2005). Musculo-skeletal outcomes in children using information technology-the need for a specific etiological model. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(2), 131-138.
Hay, L. (1981). The effect of amplitude and accuracy requirements on movement time in children. Journal of Motor Behavior, 13(3).
Hayat, N., Anwar, M. Y., Ajmal, M., Idress, A., Shah, F. H., & Nazir, S. (2011). Rapid product development: a case study of ergonomically designed mouse. Pakistan Journal of Science, 63(2), 108-110.
Horejsi, M., & Ray, B. B. (2004). Technology and civic empowerment: toward inclusion and participatory citizenship in the elementary social studies classroom. Electronics Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 3, 41-51.
Hourcade, J. P. (2002). It's too small! Implications of children's developing motor skills on graphical user interfaces, Technical Report CS-TR-4425, UMIACS-TR-2002-104, HCIL-TR-2002-34: Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Hourcade, J. P., Bederson, B. B., Druin, A., & Guimbretiere, F. (2004). Differences in pointing task performance between preschool children and adults using mice. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 11(4), 357-386.
Hur, Y., & Han, J. (2009). Analysis on children's tolerance to weak recognition of storytelling robots. Journal of Convergence Information Technology, 4(3), 103-109.
Jacobs, K., Shenkar, O., Erez, A. B.-H., & Gillespie, R. M. (2008). Ergonomics for children and youth in the educational environment. In J. Karen, EdD, Otr/L, Cpe & Faota (Eds.), Ergonomics for Therapists (Third Edition) (pp. 246-264). Saint Louis: Mosby.
Jhons, T. (1989). Psychology of computer use: XVI. Effect of computer pointing device on children’s processing rate. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 1259-1263.
Jhons, T. (1991). An Empirical Study of Children’s Use of Computer Pointing Device. Journal of Education Computing Research, 7(1), 61-76.
Joiner, R., Messer, D., Light, P., & Littleton, K. (1998). It is best to point for young children: a comparison of children's pointing and dragging. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(3), 513-529.
Kail, R. (1991). Developmental change in speed of processing during childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 109(3), 490-501.
Karat, J., Mcdonald, J. E., & Anderson, M. (1986). Acompssion of menu selection techniques: touch panel, mouse, and keyboard. International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 25(1), 73-75.
Karlqvist, L., Hagberg, M., Hansson, G. A., & Waldenström, M. (1995). Good working environments for graphics industry VDU operators using a mouse. PREMUS, Montreal.
Karlqvist, L., Hagberg, M., Köster, M., Wenemark, M., & Nell, R. (1996). Musculoskeletal symptoms among computer-assisted design (CAD) operators and evaluation of a selfassesment questionnaire. International Journal of Occup.
Karlqvist, L., Hagberg, M., & Selin, K. (1994). Variation in upper limb posture and movement during word processing with and without mouse use. Ergonomics, 37(7), 1261 - 1267.
Kim, Y. (2000). Concurrent development of education policy and industrialization strategies in Korea (1945-95): A historical perspective. Journal of Education and Work, 13(1), 95 - 118.
King, J., & Allway, N. (1991). Self select-not necessarily protection geder equity and free-choice of a computer activity in preschool. Australian Journal of Early of Children, 16(3), 41-46.
King, J., & Allway, N. (1992). Preschooler’s use of microcomputers and input device. . Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(4), 451- 468.
King, J., & Allway, N. (1993). Young children’s use of microcomputer imputer device. Computers in the Schools, 9(4), 39-53.
Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1-14.
Kuo, C., & Chu, C. (2005). An online ergonomic evaluator for 3D product design. Computers in Industry, 56(5), 479-492.
Lane, A., & Ziviani, J. (1997). The Suitability of the mouse for Children’s use: a review of the literature. Journal of Computer in Childhood Education, 8(23), 227-245.
Legg, S. (2007). Ergonomics in schools Ergonomics, 50(10), 1523-1529.
Lim, C. J., Pan, Y., & Lee, J. (2008). Human factors and design issues in multimodal (speech/gesture) interface. International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications, 2(1), 67-77.
Markopoulos, P., & Bekker, M. (2003). Interaction design and children. Interacting with Computers, 15(2), 141-149.
Missiuna, C. (1994). Motor skill qcquisition in children with developmental coordination disorder. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 11, 214-235.
Napier, J. R. (1956). The prehensile movements of the human hand. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 38, 902- 913.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Niemi, S. M., Levoska, S., Rekola, K. E., & Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi, S. M. (1997). Neck and shoulder symptoms of high school students and associated psychosocial factors. The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 20(3), 238-242.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
Ole, B. (1997). Integrating ergonomics into the product development process. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 19(4), 317-327.
Oyewole, S. A., Haight, J. M., & Freivalds, A. (2010). The ergonomic design of classroom furniture/computer work station for first graders in the elementary school. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40(4), 437-447.
Revelle, G. L., & Strommen, E. F. (1990). The effects of practice and input device used on young children’s computer control. Journal of Computer in Childhood Education, 2(1), 33- 41.
Revelle, G. L., & Strommen, E. F. (1990). Reserch in interactive technology at the childern’s television workshop. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(4), 65-80.
Roland, E. A. (1990). A systems approach to product design and development an ergonomic perspective. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 6(1), 1-8.
Royster, L., & Yearout, R. (1999). A computer in every classroom—are schoolchildren at risk for repetitive stress injuries (RSIs)? In G. Lee (Ed.), Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and Safety (pp. 407-412): IOS Press.
Rubagiza, J., Were, E., & Sutherland, R. (2011). Introducing ICT into schools in Rwanda: Educational challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(1), 37-43.
Sánchez, J., Salinas, Á., & Harris, J. (2011). Education with ICT in South Korea and Chile. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(2), 126-148.
Scaife, M., & Bond, R. (1991). Development changes in children’s use of computer input devices. Early Child Development and Care, 69, 19-38.
Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Multimedia support of early literacy learning. Computers & Education, 39(3), 207-221.
Singleton, W. T. (1982). The body at work: Biological Ergonomics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, D., & Keep, R. (1986). Children's opinions of educational software. Educational Research, 28(2), 83 - 88.
Stammers, R. B., & Bird, J. M. (1980). Controller evaluation of a touch input air traffic data system: An indelicate Experiment. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 22(5), 581-589.
Straker, L., Maslen, B., Burgess Limerick, R., & Pollock, C. (2009). Children have less variable postures and muscle activities when using new electronic information technology compared with old paper-based information technology. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 19(2), e132-e143.
Straker, L., & Pollock, C. (2005). Optimising the interaction of children with information and communication technologies. Ergonomics, 48(5), 506-521.
Straker, L., Pollock, C., & Burgess Limerick, R. (2006). Towards evidence-based guidelines for wise use of computers by children. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(12), 1045-1053.
Strommen, E. F. (1992). Formative studies in the development of a new computer pointing device for young children. Educational Technology Research and Development, 32(4), 43-51.
Thomas, J. R. (1980). Acquisition of motor skills: information processing differences between children and adults. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51(1), 158-173.
Ulrich, K., & Eppinger, S. (2011). Product Design and Development: Fifth Editions: McGraw-Hill.
Whitfield, D., Ball, R. G., & Bird, J. M. (1983). Some Comparisons of o-display and off-display and off-display touch input devices for interaction with computer generated display. Ergonomics, 26(11), 1033-1053.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top