第五章 結論與建議
第三節 未來研究建議
修正型德菲式卡片分類法被提出的時間尚短,雖然本研究已進行改進,但未 來可進一步思考其餘改進方式,探討更多的可能性。以下針對未來研究方式提出 建議:
一、卡片修正之實施回合數
在研究進行過程中發現,雖然在德菲式卡片分類法第二回合時,受試者對於 卡片名稱仍繼續提出建議,但經由第三回合多數決之後仍維持原名,且第三回合 時受試者沒有再提出其他建議,故兩回合之架構在結果上是無差別的。後續研究 者可評估此一情形,決定後續研究所進行的回合數。
二、針對不同受試者數量進行實驗
本研究選擇受試者之人數為 9 人,但目前沒有研究證實 9 人對於修正型德菲 式卡片分類法是最適當的人數,因此建議後續研究者可探討不同人數對於此實驗 方法的影響。
三、探討不同研究個案之影響
本研究之實驗方法目前僅使用於臺師大圖書館網站,也許會受到研究個案之 限制,影響研究成效。後續研究者可多加嘗試不同類型之研究個案,做各方面之 探討。
四、探討受試者身份別的影響
雖然本研究並無探討科系身份的影響,但在實驗過程中,可發現具有圖資背 景及資訊背景的受試者,相較於其餘受試者,思考方式及建議較為不同。此外,
後續研究根據個案之不同,所選擇之受試者身份也會有差異。對於身份別可能造
成的認知差異之影響,為後續研究可探討之處。
五、初步架構的建立方式
本研究以傳統卡片分類法的方式建立改進之修正型德菲式卡片分類法實驗 中的初步架構,但使用此方法將增加整體實驗的時間及人力成本。因此後續研究 可思考是否有其他方式可以建立初步架構,以降低成本或提高研究成效。
六、實施卡片分類法之平台
本研究多數受試者認為軟體操作困難,而實體卡片之呈現較完整。但軟體仍 有其優點,例如可縮減實驗時間,以及沒有地域之限制。故後續研究可使用其他 軟體或改為線上進行方式,探討卡片分類法於虛擬平台實行的可能性,或許可發 現更佳的平台環境。
參考文獻
英文文獻
Ahlstrom, V. & Allendoerfer, K. (2004). Information organization for a portal using
a card-sorting technique. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://hf.tc.faa.
gov/technotes/dot-faa-ct-tn04-31.pdf
Boulton, M. (2007). Card sorting. Retrieved November 22, 2008, from http://v3.markboulton.co.uk/articles/detail/card_sorting_part_1/
Brophy, P. & Craven, J. (2007). Web accessibility. Library Trends, 55(4), 950-973.
Campbell, N. (2001). Usability assessment of library-related web sites methods and
case study. Chicago: LITA.
Capra, M. G. (2005). Factor analysis of card sort data: an alternative to hierarchical
cluster analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Courage, C. & Baxter, K. (2004). Understanding your users: A practical guide to user
requirements methods, tools, and techniques. San Fransisco, CA: Morgan
Kaufmann.
Coxon, A. P. M. (1999). Sorting data: collection and analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Deaton, M. (2002). Sorting techniques for user-centered information design.
Retrieved Novenber 21, 2008, from http://www.mmdeaton.com/Sorting TechniquesforInformationDesign.pdf
Dick, D. (2007). Innovations in card sorting. Retrieved November 22, 2008, from http://www.stcsig.org/usability/newsletter/0710-CardSorting.htm
Dickstein, R. & Mills, V. (2000). Usability testing at the university of arizona library:
How to let users in on the design. Information technology and libraries, 19(3), 144-150.
Ebenezer, C. (2003). Usability evaluation of an NHS library website. Health
Information and Libraries Journal, 20(3), 134-142.
Falks, A. & Hyland, N. (2000). Gaining user Insight: A case study illustrating the card sort technique. College & Research Libraries, 61(4), 349-357.
Fincher, S. & Tenenberg, J. (2005). Making sense of card sorting data. Expert Systems,
22(3), 89-93.
Fox, R.
(2008). Weaving the digital library web. OCLC Systems & Services, 24(1), 8-17.Fuccella, J. (1997). Using user centered design methods to create and design usable web sites. ACM 15th International Conference on Systems Documentation, 69-77.
Fuccella, J. & Pizzolato, J. (1998). Creating Web Site Designs Based on User
Expectations and Feedback. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from
http://internettg.org/newsletter/june98/web_design.html
Hahsler, M. & Simon, B. (2001). User-centered navigation re-design for web-based
information systems. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.wu-
wien.ac.at/usr/wi/bsimon/publikationen/navigation_re-design_amcis.pdf Hawley, M. (2008). Extending card-sorting techniques to inform the design of web
site hierarchies. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://www.uxmatters.
com/MT/archives/000332.php
Hinkle, V. (2008).
Card-sorting: What you need to know about analyzing and interpreting card sorting results
. Retrieved November 22, 2008, from http://www.surl.org/usabilitynews/102/cardsort.aspHudson, W. (2005). Playing your cards right: getting the most from card sorting for navigation design. Interactions, 12, 56-58.
Kaufman, J. (2006). Card sorting: An inexpensive and practical usability technique.
Retrieved November 23, 2008, from http://www.stc.org/intercom/PDFs/2006/
200611_17-19.pdf
Liang, S.-F. M. & Yang, C.-T. (2008). Applying card sorting method to cluster products on shopping websites: A case study. Proceedings of the 2nd.
International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, 8
pages (CD-ROM).
Maiden, N. A. M. & Hare, M. (1998). Problem domain categories in requirements engineering International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 49(3), 281-304.
Martin, S. & Kidwell, D. K. (2001). A case study in cluster analysis for intranet organization. 2nd International Workshop on Engineering Management for
Applied Technology, 57-64.
Maurer, D. & Warfel, T. (2004). Card sorting: a definitive guide. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/card_sorting _a_definitive_guide
Morville, P. (2005). Ambient findability: Libraries at the crossroads of ubiquitous computing and the internet. Online, 29(6), 16-21.
Morville, P. & Rosenfeld, L. (2006). Information Architecture for the World Wide
Web (3 ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
Nielsen, J. (2000). Why you only need to test with 5 users. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html
Nielsen, J. (2004). Card sorting: how many users to test. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040719.html
Nielsen, J. & Sano, D. (1994). 1994 design of SunWeb - Sun Microsystems' intranet.
Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/papers/sunweb/
Paul, C. L. (2007). A modified delphi approach to a new card sorting methodology.
Information Arts and Technologies University, Baltimore.
Robertson, J. (2002). Information design using card sorting. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200202/pkm_02_05_02a.
html
Simoens, S. (2006). Using the delphi technique in economic evaluation: Time to revisit the oracle? Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 31, 519-522.
Spencer, D. & Warfel, T. (2004). Card sorting: a definitive guide. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/card_sorting _a_definitive_guide
Tullis, T. & Wood, L. (2004). How many users are enough for a card-sorting study? . Retrieved November 25, 2008, from http://home.comcast.net/~tomtullis/
publications/UPA2004CardSorting.pdf
Turnbow, D., Kasianovitz, K., Snyder, L., Gilbert, D., & Yamamoto, D. (2005).
Usability testing for web redesign a UCLA case study. OCLC System &
Services, 21(3), 226-234.
Upchurch, L., Rugg, G., & Kitchenham, B. (2001). Using card sorts to elicit web page quality attributes. IEEE Software, 18(4), 84-89.
Walker, A. & Selfe, J. (1996). The delphi method: A useful tool for the allied health researcher. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 3(12), 677-681.
Wittiger, L. & Ebermann, V. (n. d.). Card sorting, categorizing and labeling.
Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://incom.org/code/IW_upload/
IW_50_85/Documentation/Card_Sorting.pdf
Zimmerman, D. E. & Akerelrea, C. (2002). A group card sorting methodology for
developing informational web sites. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=01049127
中文文獻
丁依玲(2007)。以卡片分類法分析大學圖書館網站架構 — 以國立臺灣師範大 學圖書館網站為例。國立臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文,未出 版,臺北市。
吳美宜(2003)。我國大學通識生死教育課程設計之研究—德懷術研究法之應用。
國立臺灣師範大學衛生教育學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
宋文娟(2001)。一種質量並重的研究法-德菲法在醫務管理學研究領域之應用。
醫務管理期刊,2(2),11-20。
許嫚婷(2000)。一個新課題 — 圖書館網頁之設計。國立臺灣師範大學圖書館 通訊,53,2-7。
黃俊英(1994)。企業研究方法。臺北市,東華。
蔡維君(2004)。大學圖書館網站好用性評估 — 以臺灣大學圖書館網站為例。
國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
魏澤群(2005)。使用者最大:從優使性(Usability)出發的網站設計原則。臺 北市:網奕資訊科技。