旅遊地圖上圖示之評估

Evaluation of the Signs on Travel Map

在週休二日開始實行之後，越來越多家庭利用假日進行休閒活動，因此國家公園、遊樂園等公共遊樂休閒場，所提供旅遊導覽地圖相對變成重要，一個好的設計地圖，能夠提供遊客明確的指示，達到容易使用及符合使用者主觀滿意度，而設計不良的導覽地圖會浪費使用者時間和造成使用者容易犯錯等問題。本研究採用兩種評估方法，針對休閒旅遊導覽地圖上的指示性圖示進行評估，主要有下列三項工作：（1）多方蒐集休閒旅遊導覽地圖上的指示性圖示（sign）（包含圖像（icon）、文字（text）及符號（symbol））共138個指示性圖示，經由焦點族群法予以篩選，最終選出34個具代表性的圖示；（2）挑選60位受測者針對篩選所得之圖示進行評估，採用主觀評估（評分）及客觀評估（混淆分析）兩種方法來評估。當混淆率高於20%或評估給分位於34個樣本中後1/3的圖示，判定為設計不良之圖示；（3）比較受設計訓練與非經設計訓練受測者不同，分析文字型與圖像型認知風格受測者之間的差異。結果發現（1）接受設計訓練人員對圖示的識認率較非接受設計訓練人員為佳；（2）圖像型受測者因為對圖示造形有先入為主的觀念，因此圖示識認率較文字型受測者為差；（3）混淆評估（客觀評估）與圖示評分（主觀評估）結果差不多；（4）當進行問卷調查時，會因圖示及文字在版面上不同配置而產生不一樣的答案。本研究提出一種新的圖示篩選方法，同時也提出圖示之主觀及客觀評估方法。最後提出問卷上配置議題，在往後研究時應予以注意考量。

After two holidays once a weak, more and more families take leisure activities in holiday. Hence, the travel maps of national parks and amusement parks become comparative important. A good design map could provide concrete indication. It is ease to use and is fit to user subjective satisfaction. A bad design map wastes user time and the users are ease to make mistakes. This study adopts two evaluation methods to evaluate indicative signs on the map. There are three parts in this study: （1） Collecting indicative signs （include icon, text and symbol） on the map from miscellaneous resources. One hundred thirty-eight indicative signs were screened using the'focus group method'. At last, thirty-four representative signs were selected for evaluating. （2） The sixty observers were chosen for assessing the signs. The subjective （score scaling） and objective （confusion analysis） methods were used to evaluate the representative signs. As the confusion ratio was over 20% or score value was behind one-third of the thirty-four representative, the sign was set as bad design. （3） The results of different observer groups were analyzed. The comparisons were done between the design trained person and non-design trained person. The cognitive styles of verbal or imagery observers were also examined. The results show that: （1） Sign-recognition ratios of person having design training are better than the person having non-design training. （2） As the cognitive style of imagery observers have bias to signs, so the recognition ratio of signs is less than that of the cognitive style of Verbal observer. （3） The evaluation results of confusion analysis and score scaling are almost the same. （4） As the different layout of signs and texts in questionnaire, the investigation results would be different. This study provides a new method for screening signs. It also affords the subjective and objective methods for evaluating signs. Finally, the issue of layout in questionnaire is indicated. It must be carefully arranged in the future study.