摘要
为了客观、定量地评价界面布局的美度,从设计风格的角度,提出非线性审美综合评价模型.以"活泼美"为例,基于已提出的美度指标体系,针对各美度指标的形式特征设计各组实验样本,计算各样本美度指标值,运用李克特量表法对"活泼美"进行调查评分;运用最小二乘法将各美度指标值与"活泼美"调查值进行曲线拟合,得出关系表达式,实现美度指标适度标准化;运用逼近理想解排序法和相关性定权法,建立界面布局"活泼美"的综合评价模型.对10个界面样本进行实例研究,运用心理物理学中的两极递进式排序法对模型进行验证分析。结果表明,模型具有良好的精度,可以作为界面智能设计系统的适应度评价函数,为界面智能设计的发展提供可靠的技术支撑.
A nonlinear model of aesthetic synthetic evaluation was proposed for objectively and quantitatively evaluating the interface layout aesthetics from the perspective of design style.Taking“lively beauty”as an example,experimental sample groups were designed according to the formal characteristics of aesthetic measure indexes,the aesthetic measure index values of each sample were calculated,based on the aesthetic measure index system proposed.The“lively beauty”was investigated and scored by Likert scale method,the aesthetic measure index values and the“lively beauty”survey values were curve−fitted by least square method,and a relation expression derived from the curve fitting moderately standardized the aesthetic measure indexes.Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution and criteria importance through intercriteria correlation method were used to establish a synthetic evaluation model of“lively beauty”of interface layout.Ten interface samples were analyzed,and the model was validated and analyzed by the bipolar progressive sorting method of psychophysics.Results show that the model has good accuracy.The model can be used as the fitness function of the interface intelligent design system,and provide reliable technical support for the development interface intelligent design.
作者
周爱民
周彩霞
欧阳晋焱
张书涛
ZHOU Ai-min;ZHOU Cai-xia;OUYANG Jin-yan;ZHANG Shu-tao(School of Design Art,Lanzhou University of Technology,Lanzhou 730050,China)
出处
《浙江大学学报(工学版)》
EI
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2020年第12期2273-2285,共13页
Journal of Zhejiang University:Engineering Science
基金
国家自然科学基金资助项目(51705226)
甘肃省自然科学基金资助项目(2017gs10786)。
关键词
界面设计
美度
风格美
指标适度标准化
综合评价
interface design
aesthetic measure
stylistic beauty
moderate standardized of index
synthetic evaluation