圖形外形特徵數量與簡化程度之認知研究

The Relationship between Shape Features and Degrees of Graphic Simplification

10.6381/JD.201009.0087

許峻誠(Chun-Cheng Hsu)；王韋堯(Regina W. Y. Wang)

圖形設計 ； 簡化程度 ； 外形特徵 ； 偏好 ； 操作型定義 ； Graphic Design ； Degrees of Simplification ； Shape Feature ； Preference ； Operational Definition

設計學報

15卷3期（2010 / 09 / 01）

87 - 105

繁體中文

簡化一直是視覺設計上很重要的手法，設計師常利用簡化手法從對象物的眾多訊息中萃取重要特徵。藝術學、完形學派以及認知心理學的研究都認為簡化圖形的簡潔與抽象性，有利於記憶或提取。人對於圖形簡化程度的認知受到外形特徵數量的影響，然而，過去的研究並未明確定義兩者之間的關係。因此本研究主要目的有兩點：(1)從圖形外形特徵數量預測觀者對簡化程度的認知；(2)討論圖形簡化程度與觀者偏好之間的關係。 本研究以108個外形特徵數量定義明確的線條圖形為受測樣本，請60名受測者針對這些圖形的簡化程度做李克式量表評估，以瞭解觀者對於這108個圖形的簡化程度認知。所得數據利用迴歸分析，可得到圖形簡化程度之迴歸方程式為4.724-0.005（整體節點量）-0.131（部件元素量）。 此外，本研究也利用迴歸分析，從圖形簡化程度預測觀者偏好。若將設計和非設計背景人士之偏好分開來做探討，結果會發現設計人士的偏好與簡化程度之間的關係呈現「倒U型」曲線；非設計人士則是偏好越完整且細節較多的圖形，因此偏好與簡化程度呈現「直線」的負相關。 本研究提出明確的簡作操作與數值並不試圖取代設計的創意性，而是希望透過這些預測方法提供設計師評估圖形簡化時的參考與建議。 本研究也希望能作為未來電腦輔助圖形應用或者圖形簡化測量的基礎。

Simplification is one of the most important methods in visual design. Designers often use it to extract significant features from subject. Studies from Art, Gestalt theory, Cognitive psychology have proposed that the concise and abstract properties of simplified graphics facilitate our memory and recall. However, these studies didn't clearly define the relationship between the quantity of shape elements and the degree of simplification. This study used 108 graphics as stimuli. A Likert-type scale was applied to rate the degree of simplification of each stimulus, and 60 subjects were invited to participate in an experiment. Then, by utilizing the regression analysis, the quantitative description of the external shape and the assessment of the degree of simplification would yield the formula defined as ”Graphic Simplification Degree=4.724-0.005 (overall node quantity) -0.131 (shape element quantity)”. Next, the differences between designers and non-designers in the preferences over the degree of graphic simplification are discovered. Designers' preference and degree of simplification presents an inverted U curve relationship, while non-designers exhibit a linear correlation. This study has proposed a clear operational definition and numerical values of graphic simplification while not attempting to replace the creativity of the design. Through these prediction methods, references and recommendations can be provided to the designers when assessing the graphics. Moreover, the study is desired to be established as the fundamentals for the quantitative descriptions of the computer-aided graphic application and further research.

1. 王韋堯、許峻誠(2006)。等距圖形抽象化之設計實作研究。藝術教育研究，11，33-53。
   連結：
2. 張文智、衛萬里(2005)。應用聯合分析法於商標設計之最佳化研究－以羅昇企業設計個案為例。設計學報，10(4)，55-70。
   連結：
3. 許峻誠、王韋堯(2009)。學習背景差異對簡化圖形之偏好研究。藝術教育研究，17，109-132。
   連結：
4. Alario, F. X.,Ferrand, L.(1999).A set of 400 Pictures standardized for French: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, and age of acquisition.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,31(3),531-552.
5. Arnheim, R.(1974).Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye.Berkeley:University of California Press.
6. Arnheim, R.(1969).Visual thinking.Berkeley:University of California Press.
7. Attneave, F.(1954).Some informational aspects of visual perception.Psychological Review,61,183-193.
8. Avital, T.,Cupchik, G. C.(1998).Perceiving hierarchical structures in nonrepresentational paintings.Empirical Studies of the Arts,16,59-70.
9. Babbie, E.(2002).The basics of social research.CA:Wadsworth.
10. Bell, C.(1949).Art.New York:Oxford University Press.
11. Berlyne, D. E.(1974).Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation.Washington:Hemisphere.
12. Biederman, I.(1987).Recognition-By-Components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94,115-147.
13. Chan, C. S.(2000).Can style be measured?.Design Studies,21(3),277-291.
14. Chan, C. S.(1994).Operational definitions of style.Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design,21(2),223-246.
15. Chuang, M. C.,Shiau, K. A.(1998).A study of style recognition and the operation of products in which Ming-style chairs are used as examples.Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,25(6),837-848.
16. Cooper, D. R.,Schindler, P. S.(2003).Business research methods.Taipei:Mcgraw-Hill.
17. Eysenck, M.,Keane, M.(2005).Cognitive psychology-A student's handbook.London:Psychology Press.
18. Fraisse,Elkin(1963).Etude génétique de l'influence des modes de presentation sur Ic semi de reconnaissance d'objets familiers.L'Année Psychologique,63,1-12.
19. Gerrig, R. J.,Zimbardo, P. G.(2008).Psychology and life.Boston, MA:Pearson.
20. Goldstein, B.(2007).Sensation and perception.Belmont, CA:Wadsworth-Thomson Learning.
21. Gombrich, E. H.(1969).Art and illusion: A study in the psychology of pictorial representation.N.J.:Princeton University Press.
22. Gombrich, E. H.(1982).The image and the eye.London:Phaidon Press.
23. Goodwin, C. J.(1995).Research in psychology.New York:Wiley.
24. Kawabata, H.,Zeki, S.(2004).Neural correlates of beauty.Journal of Neurophysiology,91,1699-1705.
25. Mauro, R.,Kubovy, M.(1992).Caricature and face recognition.Memory & Cognition,20(4),433-440.
26. McDougall, S.,Curry, M. B.,de Bruijn, O.(1999).Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity and semantic distance for 239 symbols.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers,31,487-519.
27. McDougall, S.,Reppa, I.(2008).Why do I like it? The relationships between icon characteristics, user performance and aesthetic appeal.Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society 52nd Meeting Proceedings,52(18),1257-1261.
28. Palmer, S.,Rosch, E.,Chase, P.(1981).Canonical perspective and the perception of objects.International symposium on attention and performance,N. J.:
29. Rosch, E. H.(1973).Natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,4,328-350.
30. Rosch, E.(ed.),Lloyd, B.(ed.)(1978).Cognition and categorization.N. J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Rosch, E.,Mervis, C. B.,Gray, W. D.,Johnson, D. M.,Boyes-Braem, P.(1976).Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,8,382-439.
32. Ryan, T. A.,Schwartz, C. B.(1956).Speed of perception as a function of mode of representation.The American Journal of Psychology,69,60-69.
33. Snodgrass, J. G.,Vanderwart, M.(1980).A Set of 260 pictures: Norms for naming agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory,6,174-215.
34. Vartanian, O.,Goel, V.(2004).Neuroanatomical correlates of aesthetic preferences for paintings.Neuroreport,15,893-897.
35. Wang, M. Y.,Huang, J. T.(2002).The effect of global diagnosticity and complexity on object recognition.Chinese Journal of Psychology,44,189-210.
36. Wang, R.,Hsu, C. C.(2007).Study of the design operation of graphic simplification.The Design Journal,10(3),54-73.
37. 石計生、羅清俊、曾淑芬、邱曉婷、黃慧琦(2003)。社會科學研究與SPSS 資料分析：台灣資料庫的應用。台北市=Taipei:雙葉書廊=Shuang She Book。
38. 邱皓政(2006)。量化研究法（二）：統計原理與分析技術。台北市=Taipei:雙葉書廊=Shuang She Book。
39. 許峻誠(2007)。台北市=Taipei，國立台灣科技大學設計研究所=National Taiwan University of Science and Technology。
40. 舒華、程元善、張厚粲(1989)。235 個圖形命名一致性、熟悉性、表象一致性和視覺複雜性評定。心理學報，4，389-396。

1. 藍先鴻,邱倚璿(2021)。The Influences of Icon Design Styles on Subjective Preference, Visual Search, and Memory。中華心理學刊，63(2)，143-157。
2. 李傳房、王藍亭(2014)。學習者對螢幕圖像真實度傳達之偏好研究。藝術學報，95，143-167。
3. 林昱彣,王藍亭(2020)。扁平化設計在手機介面圖像之辨識率研究。書畫藝術學刊，28，351-366。
4. 吳育廷(2018)。旅遊書籍的插畫功能性研究。中華印刷科技年報，2018，438-470。
5. 楊喻捷、傅銘傳、孫慶文(2018)。漢字造形之促發再認實驗研究。藝術學報，102，41-63。