可用性（usability）一直被視為提升品牌形象、產品價值及顧客忠誠度的方法之一，然而過去的研究指出，可用性的評估常常因為資源的限制而被忽略，而且愈趨緊縮的產品生命週期使得這個問題日益嚴重。此外，負責產品開發過程不同層面的人員，也對可用性有著不同的看法。因此，如何將可用性方法，在不佔用過多有限資源的前提下，整合進產品開發過程，便成了一個重要的課題。
本研究提出一個名為FSM-GOMS的整合模式，結合有限狀態機器（Finite State Machine, FSM）這個正規方法，及GOMS（為Goals, Operators, Methods, 及Selection rules的縮寫）這個人機介面模式。透過找出兩者的共通特色，本研究提出一個整合這兩個方法的架構，並透過簡單的例子描述此架構。此外，為驗證這個架構，本研究以一模擬電子化程序書的平台作為案例，討論及驗證該架構之應用過程及實用性。在本研究中，該模擬平台亦作為以實驗法評估三個電子化程序書設計項目的研究環境。
從案例研討中發現，以本研究所提之整合FSM及GOMS的方法可找出單獨採任一方法所無法顯現的問題。而以實驗法評估三個電子化程序書設計項目方面，嵌入式控制及參數顯示的設計對時間績效有顯著改善，但在其他方面也有其蘊涵。同樣是在分析電子化程序書系統，透過FSM-GOMS架構及實驗法，可以得到不同的可用性見解。在未來要將FSM-GOMS架構的潛力完全發揮，可將該架構實做成開發工具。

Usability has been regarded as a method to enhance brand image, product value, and customer loyalty. However, researches have shown that usability is very often neglected due the resource constraints. The ever-shortening lifecycle of a product also makes worse the situation. In addition, people in charge of different aspects of a product often have different mindsets toward usability. Therefore, it’s needed to provide a way to integrate usability methodology into the process of product development without incurring too much consumption of the already limited resource.
In this thesis, a framework called FSM-GOMS, combining a formalism called Finite State Machine (FSM) and GOMS (an acronym for Goals, Operators, Methods, and Selection rules), is proposed. By singling out common traits of these two methods, a suggested flow of integrating the two is put forward and described with the help of illustrative examples. A simulated Computer-based Procedure (CBP) system is used as the subject of case study as a means to validate and discuss the proposed framework. The simulated CBP system also doubles as a research platform for the evaluation of three design features of CBP systems, which was conducted with experimental method.
From the case study, the application of the proposed framework revealed problems that are not otherwise available if either method was applied alone. As to the experimental evaluation of the three design features, embedded control/parameter display was found to be superior in terms of performance, but other implications were also found. Comparing the findings of the case study with those of experimental evaluations, it was found that each method shed light on different facets of usability problems. In the future, potentials of the FSM-GOMS framework can be fully utilized with the realization of the framework as a toolset.

Andre, T. S., Hartson, H. R., Belz, S. M., & McCreary, F. A. (2001). The user action framework: a reliable foundation for usability engineering support tools. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54(1), 107-136.
Barnes, V., Desmond, P., Moore, C., & O'Hara, J. (1996). Preliminary review criteria for evaluating computer-based procedures (BNL Technical Report E2090-T4-2-9/96). Upton, NY: Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Baumeister, L. K. (2003). A Comparison of Tools for Building GOMS models. Paper presented at the ACM CHI'2000, The Hague, Amsterdam.
Beard, D. V., Smith, D. K., & Denelsbeck, K. M. (1996). Quick and Dirty GOMS: A Case Study of Computed Tomography Interpretation. Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 11, 157-180.
Blandford, A., & Wong, B. L. W. (2004). Situation awareness in emergency medical dispatch. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61, 421-452.
Boar, B. (1984). Application Prototyping: A Requirements Definition Strategy for the 80s. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Boehm, B. W., Gray, T. E., & Seewaldt, T. (1984). Prototyping vs. specifying: A multi-project experiment. Paper presented at the The 7th International Conference on Software Engineering, Orlando, Florida, United States.
Boivie, I., Åborg, C., Persson, J., & Löfberg, M. (2002). Why usability gets lost or usability in in-house software development. Interacting with Computers, 15(4), 623-639.
Brun, P., & Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (1995). A Taxonomy and Evaluation of Formalisms for the Specification of Interactive Systems. Paper presented at the HCI '95, Huddersfield.
Burns, C. M. (2000). Navigation strategies with ecological displays. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 111-129.
Byrne, M. D., Wood, S. D., Foley, J. D., Kieras, D. E., & Sukaviriya, P. N. (1994). Automating interface evaluation. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Canny, J. (2006). The future of human-computer interaction. ACM Queue, 4(6), 24-32.
Cao, M., Zhang, Q., & Seydel, J. (2005). B2C e-commerce web site quality: an empirical examination. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(5), 645-661.
Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Casey, B. E., & Dasarathy, B. (1982). Modeling and validating the man-machine interface. Software-Practice and Experience, 12(6), 557-569.
Christoffersen, K., Hunter, C. N., & Vicente, K. J. (1998). A longitudinal study of the effects of ecological interface design on deep knowledge. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48, 729-762.
Chuah, M. C. (1994). Analyzing Graphic and Textual Layouts with GOMS: Results of a Preliminary Analysis. Paper presented at the ACM CHI'94, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cockburn, A., & Jones, S. (1996). Which way now? Analysing and easing inadequacies in WWW navigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 105-129.
Colquhoun, R. (1984). Development of symptom-oriented operating procedures. Nuclear Safety, 25(3).
Compaq. (1999). Rage against the Machine. Retrieved 10/17, 2005, from http://www.mori.com/polls/1999/rage.shtml
Degani, A., & Heymann, M. (2002). Formal Verification of Human-Automation Interaction. Human Factors, 44(1), 28-43.
Desaulniers, D., Gillan, D., & Rudisill, M. (1988). The effects of format in computer-based procedure displays. Paper presented at the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA.
Gong, R., & Elkerton, J. (1990). Designing Minimal Documentation Using a GOMS Model: A Usability Evaluation of an Engineering Approach. Paper presented at the ACM CHI'90.
Gong, R., & Kieras, D. (1994). A Validation of the GOMS Model Methodology in the Development of a Speicialized, Commercial Software Application. Paper presented at the ACM CHI'94.
Gray, W. D., John, B. E., & Atwood, M. E. (1993). Project Ernestine: Validating a GOMS Analysis for Predicting and Explaining Real-World Task Performance. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 237-309.
Greif, S. (1991). The Role of German Work Psychology in the Design of Artifacts. In J. M. Carrol (Ed.), Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface (pp. 203-226). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gugerty, L. (1993). The use of analytical models in human-computer interface design. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 625-660.
Gunther, R., Janis, J., & Butler, S. (2001). The UCD Decision Matrix: How, When, and Where to Sell User-Centered Design into the Development Cycle. Retrieved 9/6, 2006, from http://www.ovostudios.com/upa2001/surf.htm
Haan, G. D., Veer, G. C. V. D., & Vliet, J. C. V. (1992). Formal modelling techniques in humancomputer interaction. In G. C. v. d. Veer, S. Bagnara & G. A. M. Kempen (Eds.), Cognitive Ergonomics: Contributions from Experimental Psychology, Theoretical Issues (pp. 27-67). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Hall, A. (1990). Seven Myths of Formal Methods. IEEE Software, 7(5), 11-19.
Harrison, M., & Thimbleby, H. (1990). Formal methods in human-computer interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horrocks, I. (1999). Constructing the user interface with statecharts: Addison-Wesley.
Hudson, S. E., John, B. E., Knudsen, K., & Byrne, M. D. (1999). A tool for creating predictive performance models from user interface demonstrations. Paper presented at the Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Asheville, North Carolina, United States.
Hudson, W. (2001). Towards Unified Models in User-Centred and Object-Oriented. In M. v. Harmelen (Ed.), Object Modeling and User Interface Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 423-432.
Irving, S., Polson, P., & Irving, J. E. (1994). A GOMS Analysis of the Advanced Automated Cockpit. Paper presented at the ACM CHI'94.
Ivory, M. Y., & Hearst, M. A. (2001). The State of Art in Automating Usability Evaluation of User Interfaces. ACM Computing Surveys, 33(4), 470-516.
Jacob, R. J. K. (1983). Using formal specifications in the design of a human-computer interface. Communications of the ACM, 26(4), 259-264.
Ji, Y. G., & Yun, M. H. (2006). Enhancing the Minority Discipline in the IT Industry: A Survey of Usability and User-Centered Design Practice. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 20(2), 117-134.
John, B. E. (1990). Extensions of GOMS analyses to expert performance requiring perception of dynamic visual and auditory information. Paper presented at the ACM CHI'90.
John, B. E. (1996). The GOMS Family of User Interface Analysis Techniques: Comparison and Contrast. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 3(4), 320-351.
John, B. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1996). Using GOMS for User Interface Design and Evaluation: Which Technique? ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 3(4), 287-319.
John, B. E., & Vera, A. H. (1992). A GOMS Analysis of a Graphic Machine-Paced, Highly Interactive Task. Paper presented at the ACM CHI'92.
Jung, Y., Seong, P., & Kim, M. (2004). A model for computerized procedures based on flowcharts and success logic trees. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 26, 351-362.
Kieras, D. (1996). A Guide to GOMS Model Usability Evaluation using NGOMSL: University of Michigan.
Kieras, D., & Polson, P. (1983). A generalized transition network representation for interactive systems. Paper presented at the CHI '83 Human Factors in Computer Systems.
Kieras, D., & Polson, P. G. (1985). An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22, 365-394.
Kieras, D. E., & Wood, S. D. (1995). GLEAN: A Computer-Based Tool for Rapid GOMS Model Usability Evaluation of User Interface Designs. Paper presented at the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
Krohn, G. (1983). Flowcharts used for procedural instructions. Human Factors, 25, 573-581.
Kuo, H.-M., Hwang, S.-L., & Wang, E. M.-Y. (2004). Evaluation research of information and supporting interface in electronic commerce web sites. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(9), 712-721.
Lapinsky, G. (1988). Lessons learned from the special inspection program for emergency operation procedures (NUREG-1358). Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Lichter, H., Schneider-Hufschmidt, M., & Zullighoven, H. (1994). Prototyping in Industrial Software Projects-Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(11), 825-832.
Lipner, M., & Rusnica, L. (1996). Computerized systems for procedures implementation monitoring. Paper presented at the The 1996 American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Control, and Human-Machine Interface Technologies, La Grange, IL.
Mallen, C. (1996). Designing intelligent help for information processing systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 349-377.
Mantei, M. M., & Teorey, T. J. (1988). Cost/benefit analysis for incorporating human factors in the software lifecycle. Communications of the ACM, 31(4), 428-439.
Marcus, A. (2005). User Interface Design's Return on Investment: Examples and Statistics. In R. G. Bias & D. J. Mayhew (Eds.), Cost-Justifying Usability. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman.
Marsh, K. (1993). Win32 Window Hierarchy and Styles: MSDN, Microsoft Corp.
Mayhew, D. J. (1999). The Usability Engineering Lifecycle. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Moran, T. P. (1983). Getting into a system: External-internal task mapping analysis. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA.
Moray, N., & Huey, B. (1988). Human Factors: Research and Nuclear Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Mosier, K., Palmer, E., & Degani, A. (1992). Electronic checklists: Implications for decision making. Paper presented at the The Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA.
Myers, B. A., & Rosson, M. B. (1992). Survey on user interface programming. Paper presented at the ACM CHI'92, Monterey, CA.
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Why interactive computer systems are sometimes not used by people who might benefit from them. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51, 307-321.
Nielsen, J., & Mack, R. L. (Eds.). (1994). Usability Inspection Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Niwa, Y., Hollnagel, E., & Green, M. (1996). Guidelines for computerized presentation of emergency operating procedures. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 167, 113-127.
Norman, D. (1990). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday.
O'Hara, J., Stubler, W., & Higgins, J. (1996). Hybrid human-system interfaces: Human factors considerations (BNL Technical Report J6012-T1-4/96). Upton, New York: Brookhaven National Laboratory.
O'Hara, J. M., & Brown, W. S. (2002). The Effects of Interface Management Tasks on Crew Performance and Safety in Complex, Computer-Based Systems: Overview and Main Findings (NUREG/CR-6690, Vol. 1). Upton, New York: Brookhaven National Laboratory.
O'Hara, J. M., Higgins, J. C., Stubler, W. F., & Kramer, J. (2000). Computer-based Procedure Systems: Technical Basis and Human Factors Review Guidance (NUREG-6634). Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Olson, J. R., & Nilson, E. (1987-88). Analysis of the cognition involved in spreadsheet software interaction. Human -Computer Interaction, 3, 309-349.
Olson, J. R., & Olson, G. M. (1990). The Growth of Cognitive Modeling in Human-Computer Interaction Since GOMS. Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 221-265.
Padovani, S., & Lansdale, M. (2003). Balancing search and retrieval in hypertext: context-specific trade-offs in navigational tool use. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 125-149.
Parnas, D. L. (1969). On the use of transition diagrams in the design of a user interface for an interactive computer system. Paper presented at the The 24th National ACM Conference.
Peck, V. A., & John, B. E. (1992). Browser-Soar: A Computational Model of a Highly Interactive Task. Paper presented at the ACM CHI'92.
Place, P. R. H., Wood, W., & Tudball, M. (1990). Survey of Formal Specification Techniques for Reactive Systems.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S., & Carey, T. (1994). Human-Computer Interaction: Concepts And Design. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley.
Preece, J., & Sharp, Y. R. H. (2002). Interaction design: Wiley.
Reisner, P. (1984). Formal grammar as a tool for analyzing ease of use: Some fundamental concepts. In J. C. Thomas & M. L. Schneider (Eds.), Human Factors in Computer Systems (pp. 53-78). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Rosenbaum, S., Rohn, J. A., & Humburg, J. (2000). A toolkit for strategic usability: results from workshops, panels, and surveys. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Roth, E. (1994). Operator performance in cognitively complex simulated emergencies: Implications for computer-based support systems. Paper presented at the The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA.
S. J. Payne, S. J., & Green, T. R. G. (1986). Task-action grammars: A model of the mental representation of task languages. Human-Computer Interaction, 2, 93-133.
Schweickert, R. (1978). A critical path generalization of additive factor method: Analysis of a Stroop task. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 18(2), 105-139.
Sedig, K., Klawe, M., & Westrom, M. (2001). Role of Interface Manipulation Style and Scaffolding on Cognition and Concept Learning in Learnware. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 8(1), 34-59.
Shackel, B. (Ed.). (1991). Human factors for informatics usability - background and overview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snyder, K. (1991). A Guide to Software Usability: IBM Corp.
Stubler, W., Higgins, J., & O'Hara, J. (1996). Evaluation of the potential safety-significance of hybrid human-system interface topics (BNL Report J6012-T2-6/96). Upton, NY: Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Tauber, M. J. (1990). ETAG: Extended task action grammar - A language for the description of the user's task language. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Cambridge, UK.
Teigen, J., & Ness, E. (1994). Computerized support in the preparation, implementation, and maintenance of operating procedures. Paper presented at the IFAC Workshop on Computer Software Structures Integrating AI/KBS Systems in Process Control, Lund, Sweden.
Thimbleby, H. (2004). User interface design with matrix algebra. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 11(2), 181-236.
Thimbleby, H., Cairns, P., & Jones, M. (2001). Usability Analysis with Markov Models. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 8(2), 99-132.
Vicente, K. J., & Rasmussen, J. (1992). Ecological Interface Design: Theoretical Foundations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22(4), 589-606.
Vredenburg, K., Mao, J.-Y., Smith, P. W., & Carey, T. (2002). A survey of user-centered design practice. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Ware, C. (2000). Information visualization: perception for design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman.
Wasserman, A. I. (1985). Extending State Transition Diagrams for the Specification of Human-Computer Interaction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-11(8), 699-713.
Wiedenbeck, S., & Davis, S. (1997). The influence of interaction style and experience on user perceptions of software packages. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46, 563-588.
Woods, D., Roth, E., Stubler, W., & Mumaw, R. (1990). Navigating through large display networks in dynamic control applications. Paper presented at the The Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA.
Wright, P., & Reid, F. (1973). Written information: some alternatives to prose for expressing the outcomes of complex contingencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 160-166.