第五章 結論與建議
第三節 未來研究建議
本研究為相似性評定及徑路搜尋法應用於網站資訊架構的初階研究,相似性 評定的項目數量及徑路搜尋法的分析方法都可採用不同的方式進行後續研究,而 不同類型的網站或許也有不同的結果,以下針對未來研究提出一些建議如下:
一、 以較多項目數的方式進行相似性評定
相似性評定讓受試者將所有項目兩兩比較進行評定,從文獻探討可知若項目 數量過多會造成受試者的心理壓力,而導致測試結果的不公正。然而越是複雜的 網站越需要進行使用者研究,因此,未來研究者可考量由不同受試者分別完成一 份相似性評定的數據。如此一來,可更確實的評量使用者對網站項目相關度的評 定,也可避免過多的評定次數影響測試結果。
二、 嘗試以不同的方式分析徑路搜尋法所得的網絡圖
徑路搜尋法所得之網絡圖可表達項目之間的關聯性,本研究嘗試以連結數較 多的中心作為分析網站分類的依據,所得結果頗符合使用者的需求,未來研究者
68
可探討是否有其他分析方式解釋徑路搜尋法所得之網絡圖如何轉置為網站架構 之樹狀圖。
三、 對不同類型的研究個案進行研究
本研究為個案研究,研究結果僅供臺師大圖書館網站參考,其他網站僅供推 論,後續研究者可多加嘗試不同類型之研究個案,以探討同樣的研究方法對不同 網站的影響。
69
參考文獻
Ahlstrom, V. & Allendoerfer, K. (2004). Information organization for a portal using a card-sorting technique. Retrieved May 14, 2012, from
http://hf.tc.faa.gov/technotes/dot-faa-ct-tn04-31.pdf
Boulton, M. (2007). Card sorting. Retrieved May 22, 2012, 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.
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.
Chen, C. & Czerwinski, M. (1998). From latent semantics to spatial hypertext:
Integrated approach. HyperText, 98, Pittsburgh, USA, 77-86.
Chen, C. & Morris, S. (2003). Visualizing evolving networks: Minimum spanning trees versus Pathfinder Networks. IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (pp. 67-74). Seattle, WA.
Clariana, R. B. & Wallace, P. (2005). A comparison of pair-wise, list-wise, and clustering approaches for eliciting structural knowledge. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Cooke, N. J. (1999) Knowledge elicitation. In F. T. Durso.(Ed.), Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 479-509). UK: Wiley.
Cooke, N. J., Durso, F. T., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1986). Recall and measures of memory organization. Journal of Experimental: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 12, 538-549.
Cooke, N. M., & McDonald, J. E. (1987). The application of psychological scaling techniques to knowledge elicitation for knowledge-based systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 26, 533-550.
Courage, C. & Baxter, K. (2004). Understanding your users: A practical guide to user requirements methods, tools, and techniques. San Fransisco, CA: Morgan
Kaufmann.
70
Coxon, A. P. M. (1999). Sorting data: collection and analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dearholt, D. W. & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Properities of pathfinder networks. In R. W. Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization (pp. 1-30). NJ: Ablex.
Deaton, M. (2002). Sorting techniques for user-centered information design.
Retrieved May 21, 2012, from
http://www.mmdeaton.com/SortingTechniquesforInformationDesign.pdf
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.
Durso, F. T. & Coggins, K. A. (1990). Graphs in the social and psychological sciences: Empirical contributions of pathfinder. In R. W. Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization (pp. 31-52).
NJ: Ablex.
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. & Pizzolato, J. (1998). Creating Web Site Designs Based on User Expectations and Feedback. Retrieved May 24, 2012, from
http://internettg.org/newsletter/june98/web_design.html
Fuccella, J. (1997). Using user centered design methods to create and design usable web sites. Paper presented at the 15th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation, New York.
Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson, P. J., & Acton, W. H. (1991). Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 88-96.
Hahsler, M. & Simon, B. (2001). User-centered navigation re-design for web-based information systems. Retrieved May 24, 2012, from
http://michael.hahsler.net/research/webdesign_amcis2000/TT04-11_final.pdf Hawley, M. (2008). Extending card-sorting techniques to inform the design of web
site hierarchies. Retrieved May 21, 2012, from http://www.uxmatters.com/MT/archives/000332.php
71
Hinkle, V. (2008). Card-sorting: What you need to know about analyzing and interpreting card sorting results. Retrieved May 22, 2012, from
http://www.surl.org/usabilitynews/102/cardsort.asp
Hudson, W. (2005). Playing your cards right: getting the most from card sorting for navigation design. Interactions, 12, 56-58.
Interlink (2004): The Knowledge Network Organizing Tool (KNOT) Software.
http://interlinkinc.net/KNOT.html (visited 10/11/04)
Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. NJ: LEA.
Kaufman, J. (2006). Card sorting: An inexpensive and practical usability technique.
Retrieved May 23, 2012, from
http://unraveled.com/publications/assets/card_sorting/Card_Sorting-Kaufman.pdf Kuk, G., Wood, D., & Copeland, L. (1995). Using pathfinder networks to distinguish
conflict incidents. Paper presented at the meeting of the Audio-Recordings of NHS Management Team, University of Sheffield, UK.
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.
McGriff, S. J. & Van Meter, P. (2001). Measuring cognitive structure: An overview of pathfinder networks and semantic networks. Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University at PA.
McNamara , D. S. & O’Reilly , T. (2004): Learning: knowledge representation , organization, and acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, Old Dominion University at VA.
Mitchell, A. A. & Chi, M.T. (1984). Measuring knowledge within a domain. In P.
Nagy (Ed.), The representation of cognitive structure (pp. 85-109). Toronto, Canada: ISE.
Morville, P. & Rosenfeld, L. (2006). Information Architecture for the World Wide Web (3 ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
72
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2005). Euclidean distance. Retrieved May 21, 2012, from http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/euclidndstnc.html
Nielsen, J. (2004). Card sorting: how many users to test. Retrieved May 24, 2012, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040719.html
Paul, C. L. (2007). A modified delphi approach to a new card sorting methodology.
Information Arts and Technologies University, Baltimore.
Robertson, J. (2001). Information design using card sorting. Retrieved May 24, 2012, from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cardsorting/index.html
Rubin, D. C. (1990). Directed graphs as memory representations: The case of rhyme.
In R. W. Schvaneveldt (Ed.). Pathfinder associative networks (pp.121-134).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. NJ: Ablex.
Schvaneveldt, R. W., Durso, F. T. (1981). General semantic networks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia PA.
Selby, A. (1995). Why slopes and more Math: A calculus primer (Vol. 3). Quebec:
Author.
Spencer, D. & Warfel, T. (2004). Card sorting: a definitive guide. Retrieved May 21, 2012, 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 May 25, 2012, from
http://home.comcast.net/~tomtullis/publications/UPA2004CardSorting.pdf
Upchurch, L., Rugg, G., & Kitchenham, B. (2001). Using card sorts to elicit web page quality attributes. IEEE Software, 18(4), 84-89.
Wang, P., Hawk, W. B., & Tenopir, C. (2000). User’s interaction with world wide web resource: an exploratory study using a holistic approach. Information Processing and Management, 36(2), 232-236.
White, B. (2003). Web accessibility, mobility, and findability. In First Latin American Web Congress: proceedings: LA-WEB 2003, Santiago 2003 (pp. 239-240). Los Alamitos, Calif.: IEEE Computer Society.
73
Wittiger, L. & Ebermann, V. (n. d.). Card sorting, categorizing and labeling.
Retrieved May 24, 2012, from
http://incom.org/code/IW_upload/IW_50_85/Documentation/Card_Sorting.pdf Wood, L. E., Wood, J. R. (2002). Web-based Card Sorting for Information
Architecture. Florida, USA: The Usability Professionals Association 2002 Conference (UPA 2002).
Zimmerman, D. E. & Akerelrea, C. (2002). A group card sorting methodology for developing informational web sites. Retrieved May 24, 2012, from
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=01049127
江淑卿、郭生玉(1997)。不同學習過程的概念構圖策略對促進知識結構專家化 與理解能力之效果研究。師大學報:教育類,42 期,1-16 頁。
宋德忠、林世華、陳淑芬、張國恩(民87):知識結構的測量-徑路搜尋法與 概念構圖法的比較。教育心理學報,30(2),123-142。
邱亦秀(2000)。受試者特性對修正型德菲式卡片分類法成效影響之研究。未出 版之碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所,台北市。
謝建成、楊慧婷(2012)。知識結構網絡表徵分析大學圖書館網站架構。圖書資 訊學研究,6(2)。
未出版之碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所,台北市。
謝建成、丁依玲、陳慧倫(2011)。大學圖書館網站資訊尋獲度之研究。資訊管 理學報,18(3),25-49。
謝建成、吳怡青(2010)。以修正型德菲式卡片分類法探討大學圖書館網站尋獲 度之研究,教育資料與圖書館學,47(3),245-282。
74
附錄一、卡片分類法測驗規則
1. 本測驗使用 OptimalSort 網站進行,網站程式中的一個項目及代表一張卡片。
待本說明結束後會進行程式操作教學。
2. 本測驗共有 30 張卡片,每張卡片的標籤名稱皆代表目前國立臺灣師範大學 圖書館網站的網頁。
3. 此測驗目的在於觀察您如何分類卡片,以及您預期每個分類的意義為何。
因此您可以盡量嘗試分類這些卡片,不需要拘泥於目前圖書館網站的分類 方式。請將您認為屬於同類的卡片放在一起,不限定類別數量與大小。
4. 請給予每個卡片類別一個您認為最適合的分類名稱。
5. 若對卡片或測驗有不瞭解的地方,您可以隨時自由地發問。
75
附錄二、相似性評定測驗規則
1. 本測驗共有30 個項目,每個項目的標籤名稱皆代表目前國立臺灣師範大學 圖書館網站的網頁。
2. 此測驗目的在於瞭解您認為兩兩項目之間的相關程度,在此處相關的定義 為兩項目是否應該放在同一個分類之下,若您認為應該放在同一個分類即 為非常相關,若不應該放在同一個分類即為非常不相關,從非常相關、相 關、普通、不相關及非常不相關,總共有五等評量,您只需根據您的想法 作評定即可,不需要拘泥於目前圖書館網站的分類方式。
3. 本測驗共分為三個階段,第一個階段是以紙本問卷的形式,第二階段以電 腦問卷,第三階段以海報及便利貼形式。
4. 若對任何一個項目或測驗方式有不瞭解的地方,您可以隨時自由地發問。
76
附錄三、尋獲度測驗規則
1. 本測驗是關於圖書館網站架構的研究,等下會請你完成五個很簡單的任務,
並評分你認為這些項目的分類位置是否合適。
2. 測驗過程中會以資料夾的方式代替網站架構,資料夾代表下面還有其他項 目,文字檔表示已經是最底層的網頁內容。
3. 在開始尋找任務之前,請您先按下紅色的按鈕,這是桌面錄影軟體,因為 本研究需要記錄你的尋找過程與時間,當您完成一個尋找任務時,請按下 藍色按鈕結束錄影。
4. 測驗過程中如果有任何不瞭解的地方,您可以隨時自由地發問。
77
附錄四、網站架構圖
卡片分類法_群集分析 (AX 架構)
78
相似性評定_群集分析 (BX 架構)
79
卡片分類法_徑路搜尋分析 (AY 架構與)
80
相似性評定_徑路搜尋分析(BY 架構)