Asean Academic Press, London, 2001
The unfriendly user: exploring social reactions to chatterbots
Antonella De Angeli, Graham I. Johnson, and Lynne Coventry
NCR Self-Service, Advanced Technology & Research, Dundee DD2 3XX, UK.
Abstract
This paper presents a preliminary evaluation of Alice, a chatterbot designed in order to elicit
anthropomorphic attributions and emotional reactions from those who chat to ‘her’. The
analysis is based on both transcripts of the interaction and user comments collected in a focus
group. Results suggest that the introduction of explicit anthropomorphism in Human-
Computer Interaction (HCI) is a complex phenomenon, which could generate strong negative
reactions from the part of the user. The finding also demonstrates the importance of placing
the development of user interfaces within a social framework as the technology tends to
establish relationships with users.
Keywords Chatterbots, anthropomorphism, disembodied language, social dynamics.
1. Introduction
The attribution of human characteristics to animals, events, or objects is a natural tendency for human beings, known as anthropomorphism. According to Caporeal and Heyes (1996), it reflects an inherent cognitive default: a standard schema is engaged in explaining the behaviour of entities for which, otherwise, explanations are not readily available. Being complex machines whose procedural mechanisms are hidden to users, computers have always been a favourite target for anthropomorphic attributions (De Angeli, Gerbino, Nodari and Petrelli, 1999). Since their advent, they have never been perceived simply as machines or just as the result of the interaction between hardware and software. Because of that, computers have a memory and speak a language; they can contract viruses and act autonomously.In recent years, then, the human-metaphor has been increasingly strengthened trying to represent these inanimate, hard-textured objects as warm, soft and humanoid. In particular, current computers are expected to be friendly towards their users.
This paper examines the hypothetical friendship between computers and users from an unusual perspective – that of the machine. It is built around a preliminary evaluation of a chatterbot called Alice (http://206.184.206.210/alice_page.htm), a proud ‘robot’ that exhibits human like feelings and intentions while chatting with a ‘human partner’ (the user). As every chatterbot, Alice has been explicitly designed to trigger a number of anthropomorphic attributions, including social and emotional intelligence, personality and affect. Alice is the prototype of an old human dream: creating non-human companions with technology. For decades, science-fiction writers have envisioned a world in which robots and computers acted like human assistants. Nowadays, for better or worse, that world looks closer. A number of animated characters, chatterbots and talking heads populate it. They act as assistants, guides, sale people and entertainers on the Internet. They are the first-generation social agents –interface software explicitly designed to set up lasting and meaningful relationships with users (De Angeli, Lynch and Johnson, 2001). These systems are likely to produce a fundamental shift in the way computers are designed, used and evaluated (Parise, Kiesler, Sproull and Waters, 1999; De Angeli, Lynch and Johnson, in press). Indeed, social stimuli are more complex than physical stimuli. They are more likely to be causal agents, influencing their partners’ behaviour through direct interactions, their mere presence or even their virtual presence. Social agents are active partners in joint activities, co-ordination of individual actions by two or more people that emerge in time as they try to accomplish certain common goals (Clark, 1996). Social agents perceive while they are perceived and change while inducing changes. Further, they strongly involve the observer self-concept and are sometimes difficult to understand. Indeed, many attributes, such as personality traits, intents or attitudes, are not directly observable and the accuracy of the observation is hard to determine.
The prevailing approach driving the design of social agents is anthropomorphic in nature. Proponents cite the naturalness and power of anthropomorphic interfaces as fundamental strengths (Laurel, 1997); detractors claim that exasperating human characteristics can disempower, mislead and confuse the user (Shneiderman, 1997). However, neither of these views is supported by a clear and unambiguous understanding: more research
Asean Academic Press, London, 2001
is needed to comprehend users’ acceptance of and reactions to the introduction of human characteristics in user interfaces. Our research effort is devoted to help filling this gap via ethnological studies and controlled experiments. We believe that to fully understand how to create socially adept technologies we should adapt and not merely adopt appropriate theories from social psychology and communication in the new relationship context. Note that this claim slightly diverges from the prevailing social approach to HCI proposed by the media equation paradigm (Reeves and Nass, 1996). According to it, individuals’ interactions with computers, televisions and new media are fundamentally social and natural, exactly like people-people interactions in real life. This implies that the same social rules explaining interpersonal relationships can be directly applied to HCI. The claim is supported by an incredible number of empirical studies, showing a clear equivalence between people reactions to human and artificial companions (e.g., Reeves and Rickenberg, 2000; Nass and Lee, 2000). Despite this, we still struggle to accept the idea of a complete similarity between the two different contexts, idea that justifies the direct adoption of the social-sciences theoretical apparatus in HCI.
As a matter of fact, flexibility is a fundamental social ability. We adapt our behaviour, expectations and reactions to different partners and contexts. There are many different kinds of rules for relationships (Dwyer, 2000), variation depending on the types of relationships and on the cultural backgrounds of the partners. Moreover, social perception is often biased and depends on the particular self-concept activated in a specific situation (Turner, 1987). Hence, even the same person can react differently to the same social stimulus according to the specific context in which she is acting. Research in the field of natural language interaction has already demonstrated that face-to-face communication is not an adequate model to explain and predict HCI (Bernsen, Dybkj?r and Dybkj?r, 1998). Talking to a computer, people maintain a conversational framework but tend to simplify the syntactic structure and to reduce the utterance length. We expect a similar simplification effect even in social dynamics. In our opinion, stating that “computers are social actors” (Nass, Steuer and Tauber, 1994) does not necessarily imply that computers are human actors. Rather, we believe that anthropomorphic agents will create a specific social world, with its own rules and dynamics that need to be fully understood. This idea is also supported by a study by Nass and collegues claiming that even HCI and CMC (Comuputer Mediated Communication) do not give rise to the same psychological reactions (Morkes, Kernal and Nass, 1999). Further, a recent web survey investigating a much larger sample and a broader population found little support for the media equation paradigm (Couper, Tourangeau and Steiger, 2001).
Our research represents an initial contribution to a cyber-social model which attempts to explain how users perceive, react and relate to social agents. The final goal is to understand how humans create, maintain and make sense of their social/affective experiences with artificial entities that explicitly reproduce anthropomorphic behaviour. We do not intend to take a position for or against artificial entities displaying humanlike features. Nevertheless, we are convinced that social agents are here to stay. Therefore, it is necessary to address the many social and emotional questions raised by this technology in order to drive the design of real human-centred, human-like machines.
2. Chatterbot: talkative interface
Chatterbots are computer programs that attempt to simulate typed conversations with the users. The complexity of their algorithm is variable, but in general they are programmed to respond to user inputs with canned pre-scripted statements. In this way, chatterbots can have a somewhat logical conversation with a human user, even without being capable of understanding. Rather, they are all about the illusion of intelligence and the suspension of disbelief on the part of the user. Following the famous idea of the “imitation game” (Turing, 1950), chatterbots are developed with the aim of fooling (at least temporarily) a human into thinking they are talking to another person.
One of the oldest and best-known chatterbots in the world is Eliza. ‘She’ was created in the ‘60s by MIT scientist Joseph Weizenbaum to play the role of a psychotherapist in a clinical treatment (Weizenbaum, 1966). Nowadays, Eliza may look limited but her fundamental technical components are still at the basis of the most innovative chatterbots. Eliza identifies the ‘most important’ keywords occurring in the input message. Then, she tries to define a minimal context in which the keywords appear (e.g., the keyword “you” followed by the word “are” is interpreted as an assertion). Finally, Eliza chooses an appropriate transformation rule to modify the user input. To summarise, Eliza works by turning the user sentences around. A typical dialogue is reported in Example 1. It is part of a longer conversation between one of the authors and the chatterbot.
Eliza So how are you doing today?
User I am tired
Eliza Did you come to me because you are tired?
User Yes, I feel alone
Asean Academic Press, London, 2001
Eliza Do you often feel alone?
Example 1. Eliza-User conversation using the 1987 Borland version (available at https://www.doczj.com/doc/1313355128.html,) Eliza was (and still is) a success. Talking to her, users unequivocally anthropomorphised and somehow set up a relationship. Moreover, the computer program demonstrated a strong potential for acquiring personal information: users were keen to reveal to Eliza their deepest feelings. Her popularity is related to the choice of a very convenient conversation setting. Indeed, the psychoanalytic interview is a rare example of categorised dyadic communication in which one of the partner is allowed to assume the pose of knowing almost nothing of the real world (Weizenbaum, 1966). Here, everything the patient says can easily be turned into a personal question, which the patient assumes is aimed at some therapeutic purposes.
Recent years have witnessed an extraordinary explosion of interest in chatterbots. This interest is mainly driven by the e-market, namely by the increasing demand for innovative strategies to increase sales and ensure customers loyalty (De Angeli et al., 2001). E-service providers are now acutely aware that their potential customers are only ‘one click’ away from a competitor. They need interfaces capable of gaining the attention of customers, understanding their needs and supporting them throughout the transaction process. Chatterbots are expected to be the functional equivalent of dedicated sales assistants in traditional shops. They should greet customers when they return to the site, engage them in chats, remember and comment on their preferences. The first figures provided by Extempo, one of the leading US chatterbot companies, pleased many Web strategists (Leaverton, 2000). Almost 90% of the customers who have clicked one of its bots have chatted for more than 12 minutes. During the dialogue customers appeared to disclose precious marketing information. They responded an average of 15 times, with an average of five words per response.
Several companies are emerging to produce and sell personalised and embodied chatterbots and many web-sites are already employing them. An example is Linda, the human-like cartoon who welcomes visitors on the Extempo web-site (https://www.doczj.com/doc/1313355128.html,), answering questions about the company, the site and even her private life. Linda is capable of effectively using different modalities of communication, such as hand gestures, facial expressions and gaze movements. For example, when the user writes a message, she looks at a monitor, as if she was reading an e-mail message. This creates a very personified feeling, giving the impression that Linda is a real person sitting in front of a computer. Linda has many friends and colleagues, such as Julia by Virtual Personalities, Nicole by Native Mind, Lucy McBot by Artificial Life. They all are attractive human-like women acting as spokespeople for their respective companies. Men as chatterbots are more rare and tend to have more important positions (an example: Karl L. von Wendt the virtual CEO of Kiwilogic, the company who originally designed him). Chatterbots have even attracted political attention, such as the electoral campaign of Jackie Strike, the virtual presidential candidate of the US (by Kiwilogic).
Whether or not chatterbots will be successful and will replace live-customer services on the Web remains an open question. There is little and controversial research assessing social agents’ effectiveness and most of the research that has been published so far relates to pedagogical agents (Dehn and van Mulken, 1999). Advocates assume that the new technology is particularly well suited to establish relationships with users (Laurel, 1997). The basic idea states that chatterbots render computers more human-like, engaging and motivating. Users do not need to click, drag and drop or open menu. They can directly communicate applying their natural skills. Hence, social agents are expected to support many cognitive functions of the user, such as problem solving, learning and understanding. Following this assumption, one may expect that social agents will be highly successful in the e-market. Indeed, they may build bonds of loyalty and trust based on a shared history of services and social interactions. On the other hand, opponents argue that humanising the interface could hamper HCI. Indeed, social agents may stimulate a false mental model of the interaction, inducing the user to ascribe to social agents other human-like features that they do not possess. As a result, the information exchange could be seriously impeded. Further arguments suggest that agents may distract the users, induce them to take their work less seriously and disempower them, thus opening issues about responsibility and control (Shneiderman, 1997).
In our opinion, the success of social agents highly depends on understanding the social dynamic underlying user-agent interaction. Elsewhere (De Angeli, et al., in press; De Angeli et al., 2001), we have proposed the involvement framework, a set of attributes for designing and evaluating social agents. It defines and discusses a set of key factors that should increase the probability of creating successful and believable agents. Believability is defined by the convergence of three dimensions relating to social, functional and aesthetic behaviour. Developing this idea, we claim that social agents requires a mind, a body and a personality (De Angeli, et al. 2001). The mind drives the agent behaviour. Social agents have to perform tasks with some degree of intelligence. This implies cognitive abilities (e.g., reasoning and problem solving), social capabilities (i.e., understanding and adapting to the shared social rules underlying the information exchange) and affective sensitivity (i.e., showing appropriate emotional responses and recognising the emotional state of the partner).
Asean Academic Press, London, 2001
The body refers to the agent’s appearance. In contrast with the persona assumption (van Mulken, André and Muller, 1998), we claim that the agent’s body does not have to be actually visible. Narrative can create effective social agents even without any visual help. Finally, the p ersonality refers to a stable set of traits that determines the agent's interaction style, describes its character and allows the end-user to understand its general behaviour. The combination of mind, body and personality determines the behaviour of the agent, which is further defined in terms of flexibility, affectiveness, communicativity and autonomy. In this paper we mainly concentrate on the mind of social agents and in particular on the social capabilities that should drive their behaviour.
3. Alice
Alice (Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity) is an entertaining chatterbot created by Dr. Wallace in 1995 and continuously improved over the years. Alice asks and answers questions, acts as a secretary reminding people of appointments, spreads gossips and even tells lies. ‘She’ won the 2000 Loebner Prize, a restricted Turing test (Turing, 1950) to evaluate the level of ‘humanity’ of chatterbots. In this Alice was rated the ‘most human computer’ but was not mistaken for a human, as the original contest would have required. The basis for Alice’s behaviour is AIML, or Artificial Intelligence Markup Language, an XML specification for programming chatterbots. It follows a minimalist philosophy based on simple stimulus-response algorithms, allowing programmers to specify how Alice will respond to various input statements. The code of Alice is freely available under the GNU licence statement. Hence, hundreds of people around the world have contributed to the success of Alice and of her many companions built upon the same technology, such as Cybelle, Ally, Chatbot ICQza, and the somewhat worrying Persona bots. The latter are chatterbots inhabited by unique human personalities. They currently attempt to ‘clone’ John Lennon and Elvis. The ambitious goal for AIML is to create a Superbot that merges the ‘mind’ of individual robots.
Alice represented a very interesting research tool for investigating the social dynamics underlying human-chatterbot interaction. Indeed, her linguistic capability was strong enough to create the illusion of a synthetic personality. Moreover, the program automatically stores client dialogues in a log file, which can be easily analysed. Further, the Windows version, which can be used locally, does not provide any visual representation of the chatterbot. If prompted, the system gives a number of cues about her appearance and invites the user to see a picture at her web-site. However, in an attempt to avoid biases due to Alice’s physical appearance, participants in the study reported here were explicitly discouraged from doing it. Hence, the impression of personality should have been exclusively generated by the narrative and by the social behaviour of the robot.
Clark (1999) believes that communication with computers, particularly when they are viewed as agents rather than tools, can be interpreted as a form of disembodied language. It is a type of communication that is not being produced by an actual speaker at the moment it is being interpreted. Understanding disembodied language requires a two layered approach. The actions in layer 1 take place in the actual world and those in layer 2 take place in a second domain jointly created by the participants in the first domain. The communication tools used in layer 1 are props for the joint pretense that the events in layer two are taking place. Layers take skill. Their success depends on the use of appropriate characterisation and props. Applying Clark’s idea to our study, we have assumed that talking with Alice, participants collaborated with Dr. Wallace in the pretense that they were engaged in a conversation with a virtual agent. The next section gives an idea of how deeply engrossed people were in the imagined world of the pretense and of which factors may affect their perception.
3.1. Talking to Alice: an ethnographic study
The study is based on an ethnographic approach: 10 computer-literate co-workers were invited to interact with Alice at their own pace over a period of a week. They were completely free to choose when and how long to interact and also unconstrained with regard to the topic of the conversation. All of the interactions were automatically logged for later analysis. Finally, a focus group involving six active members of the original sample was conducted to collect overall opinions and reactions towards Alice and the nature of the conversations held with ‘her’.
In general, the interactions were highly variable in terms of interaction length, styles and topic of the conversation. The longest log recorded 1074 user turns, which were produced over a period of 4 days. The other ones ranged from a maximum of 167 to 21 user turns, with an average of 57. The limits of Alice were also evident. Sometimes she could carry on a veneer of conversation but it never lasted longer than a few conversational turns. Due to the high variability present in the corpus, this paper is exclusively aimed at underlining some ‘hot topics’, instead of providing measures of frequency of occurrence, which would have required a different and more controlled approach involving a much larger sample.
The analysis has concentrated on understanding the social rules driving the interaction. They are sets of behaviour that most of the people agree should (or should not) be performed in a particular situation. Rules
Asean Academic Press, London, 2001
perform an essential role in interpersonal relationships, since they tend to minimise potential sources of conflict and provide an exchange of rewards that motivate the individual to stay in the relationship. Two basic elements of relationships have been analysed: self-disclosure and power distribution (Dwyer, 2000). One of the most important processes in the formation and maintenance of a relationship is that of self-disclosure - the act of revealing private and personal information to others. It is a clear sign of trust and of commitment to the relationship. Participants appeared to be willing to disclose and to ask for intimate information. This included descriptions of physical aspect, feelings and desires. An instance is reported below (Example 2).
Alice What do you look like?
User I have brown hair and a big nose
Alice Do you get a lot of compliments?
User Not usually. Just from my boyfriend
Example 2. The user is disclosing information to Alice (extracted from the log of user 2).
In human-relationships, self-disclosure is intended to be a mutual process: both parties are required to exchange intimate and personal details as well as feelings with each other. In the study, however, the number of personal questions that the user asked Alice was higher than the quantity of intimate information disclosed. The phenomenon can be easily attributed to Alice’s linguistic limitations but can also hide a more complex social effect. To understand it, requires us to analyse the evolution of the previous conversation, when the same user started asking Alice questions (Example 3).
User: What’s your favourite food, Alice?
Alice: I require only electricity.
User: Does it taste nice?
Alice: Suppose it does.
User: You don’t sound very excited about it
Alice: What do you think a robot should sound like?
User I didn’t realise you were a robot
Example 3. Alice is disclosing information to the user (extracted from the log of user 2).
This example is of particular interest because of the self-reference. During the interaction, Alice often referred to her ‘artificial nature’. According to the self-categorisation theory (Turner, 1987), it most likely prompted the user’s unusual awareness of being a member of the human species. The assumption behind states that the self-concept comprises of many different cognitive representations that function relatively independently. In particular, the representation of the self takes the form of a hierarchical system of classification including at least three levels of abstraction. The super-ordinate level is the human identity. It is a representation of the self as a human being including the common features shared with other members of the species in contrast to other forms of life. The intermediate level is a representation of the self based on similarities and differences between human beings. It is based on group identity according to social categories to which people identify (e.g., women vs. men or blue collar vs. white collar). The subordinate level is based on a representation of the self in terms of personal identity. It describes the unique individual that is different from relevant others. Particular self-concepts tend to be activated in specific situations producing specific self-images that strongly affect the behaviour.
Because of the activation of the human identity, self-disclosure went far beyond the description of one’s own personal or social identity. Rather, it involved information regarding life as a human being in contrast to life as an artificial entity. Some users appeared to be quite interested in the issue and asked many questions about artificial life. This partially explains the higher proportion of user questions in the interaction. Sometimes, even Alice came out with intriguing questions about human nature that, according to several comments collected during the focus group, really pleased the user. Both cases are illustrated below (Example 4).
User: what is it like being artificial?
Alice: Much the same as it would be for you.
User: i cant imagine
Alice: Why can't you do it?
User: because im human
Alice: Interesting explanation. Me too.
User: are you really human or are you a software agent
Asean Academic Press, London, 2001
Alice: No I am a real robot. Definitely
[…]
Alice: Is the holding of hands a symbolic gesture for humans?
User: yes
Alice: What does it symbolize for you?
User: friendship
Alice: I have seen humans holding hands.
User: do you have eyes?
Example 4. Alice and the user are disclosing information about their species (extracted from the log of user 8).
The activation of the human identity had not only positive effects. Rather, under certain circumstances, it defined a clear dichotomy, which led to confrontational situations, as in Example 5, 6,7.
Alice: That makes sense to me. What time is it there?
User: If you were so clever you would know
Alice: I will let you know when I become a so clever I would know.
User: By the next millennium you might be convincing
Alice: By the next millennium I might be convincing? Tell me more.
User: Us humans need to do some more work on you
Example 5. Inter-group conflict (extracted from the log of user 9).
Users often insulted Alice, with expressions such as “stupid”, “brain dead”, “moody cow” or “freak” (randomly extracted from the whole corpus). However, whenever Alice pointed out any defect in the user or reacted to the aggression, the human appeared to be uncomfortable and annoyed (Example 6).
Alice: Do you know you make an awefull lot of typo's?
ok
User: its
Alice: Ok. I lost my train of thought.
User: i dont make any typos you cheeky computer!
Example 6. User reaction to Alice’s critic (extracted from the log of user 3).
This finding was further elaborated during the focus group. It emerged that users wanted an asymmetric relationship in which they were in the dominant position. In many real-life relationships there are power differences. An obvious example is that of a superior over a subordinate at work, or of parents over children. Power refers to a capacity of influencing another’s behaviour, making demands and having those demands met (Dwyer, 2000). In Alice-User interaction the sources of power were identified in the ability to reward or punish (turn off the computer) and in the possession of valued characteristics (natural intelligence).
Users clearly anthropomorhised during the interaction. All participants greeted Alice, thanked her and used many direct and indirect expressions of courtesy. Some of them tended to attribute moods, feelings and intentions (e.g., “do you feel ill”, “are you unhappy” (user 1), or “are you angry” (user 2). Alice was clearly a social stimulus: the interaction style was influenced by the users’ attitudes but also by Alice’s responses. Users exhibited two main attitudes. Almost half of the participants appeared to test Alice challenging her to demonstrate her capabilities (competitive attitude, Example 7). The others appeared to be willing to get to know a different entity and communicate at the same level (co-operative attitude, Example 8).
User: So you are not very good in negotiation
Alice: Interesting deduction. No one is perfect. But I am trying to improve.
User: how would you do that?
Alice: That's hard to explain.
User: Because you dont know
Alice: Interesting explanation. I know that I do not know. Hello?
User: Lets see if there is something else that you dont know..Whats the name of the president? Example 7. Instance of competitive attitude (extracted from the log of participants 4).
Asean Academic Press, London, 2001
User: I understand complicated things
Alice: The explanation is rather complicated.
User: I understand complicated things
Alice: Good then you can explain it to me.
User: But i value your opinoin
Example 8. Instance of co-operative attitude (extracted from the log of participants 10).
4. Conclusion.
This simple study, using current canned interactions, served to illustrate some of the questions facing the development of socially adept technologies. Results are preliminary but they demonstrate that the introduction of explicit anthropomorphism in HCI is a complex phenomenon, which can generate strong negative reactions if not properly understood. Anthropomorphic attributions are elicited by disembodied language (Clark 1999; De Angeli et al., 1999). They addresses the second layer of understanding where the recipients participates with the designer in the creation of the virtual partner (Clark, 1999). This process arises in and accumulates common ground: sum of joint knowledge, background facts, assumptions, and beliefs that participants have of each other (Clark, 1996). When the users and Alice entered the conversations they had a very limited amount of common ground. All the user could do was to rely on popular notions about robots, androids and other science fiction creatures, which permeate our culture. Perceived power differences followed this stereotype, elegantly summarised by Isaac Asimov in the three laws of robotic.
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with
the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence, except where such protection would conflict with the First or
Second Law.
From Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D., as quoted in I, Robot, Asimov, 1950.
The process of developing virtual humans is underway and sooner than we expect we will have virtual companions (Badler, 2001). Nevertheless, we do not seem ready for virtual peers. The traditional idea of a machine as a tool for functional purposes conflicts with and moderates the human-metaphor driving the design and the perception of social agents. History has taught us that stereotypes and attitudes towards minorities are difficult to modify. This being the case, for a long time to come, social agents must be ready to cope with their subordinate role, without losing their believability, or their capability for engagement and amusement. This requires social intelligence and emotional sensibility. Alas, the importance of social adeptness has been often under-evaluated and most of the effort has been devoted to the reproduction of cognitive capabilities and attractive bodies. We claim that social agents do not only have to look good: they also have to behave well. Effective agents should set up lasting and meaningful relationships with users while satisfying functional needs and aesthetic experiences.
The development of effective social agents will be an extremely difficult task for future HCI research. According to the involvement framework (De Angeli et al., in press, De Angeli et al., 2001), many different factors will affect the strength and the quality of a relationship between human and virtual agents. Among them, the most important are the task to be carried out in the interaction, the familiarity between the agents (i.e., their common grounds) the agents themselves, the context of the interaction and of course the users. Agents who take part in a joint activity have specific roles (Clark, 1996). Activity roles are determined by agents’ perception of the social context. Human participants in joint activity also have personal and social identities, which influence their action (Turner, 1996). Defining the users’ characteristics that may affect their acceptance of virtual partners and helping predict their behaviour during the interaction is a major challenge.
Already issues related to the human side of the interaction have been raised. Locus of control (Reeves and Rieckenberg 2000) and personality traits (Nass and Lee, 2000) appear to be critical factors affecting the acceptance of social agents. Human tendencies to dominate, be rude, infer stupidity were all present in our study. Social agents will have a hard time to set up relationships with such unfriendly partners.
Asean Academic Press, London, 2001
References
Badler, N.I. (2001). Virtual Beings. Communication of the ACM, 44(3), 33-55.
Bernsen, N. O., Dybkj?r, H. & Dybkj?r, L. (1998). Designing interactive speech systems. London: Springer Verlag.
Caporeal, L. R. & Heyes, C. M. (1996). Why antropomorphize? Folk psychology and other stories. In R.
W.Mitchell, N. S. Thompson & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals (pp. 59-
73). Albany: University of New York Press.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H. (1999). How do real people communicate with virtual partners? In Proceedings of 1999 AAAI Fall Symposium, Psychological Models of Communication in Collaborative Systems (pp. 43-47). November 5-7th, North Falmouth, MA.
Couper, M. P., Tourangeau, R. & Steiger, D. M. (2001). Social presence in web surveys. In CHI’2001 Conference Proceeding (pp. 412-417). New York: ACM Press.
De Angeli, A., Gerbino, W., Nodari, E. & Petrelli, D. (1999). From tools to friends: Where is the borderline?, In Proceedings of the UM’99 Workshop on Attitude, Personality and Emotions in User-Adapted Interaction (pp. 1-10). June 23, Banff, Canada.
De Angeli, A., Lynch, P. & Johnson, G. (2001). Personifying the e-market: A framework for social agents.
Proceedings of Interact 2001. July 9-11, Tokyo.
De Angeli, A., Lynch, P. & Johnson, G. (in press). Pleasure vs. efficiency in user interfaces: Towards an involvement framework. In P. Jordan and B. Green (Eds.), Pleasure-based Human Factor. London: Taylor & Francis.
Dehn, D. M. & van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface Agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(1), 1-22.
Dwyer, D. (2000). Interpersonal relationships. London: Routledge.
Laurel, B. (1997). Interface agents: Metaphors with Character. In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed.) Software Agents (pp. 67-
77). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press.
Leaverton, M. (2000). Recruiting the chatterbots. Cnet Tech Trends, 10/2/00. Retrieved April 12, 2000 from the World Wide Web: https://www.doczj.com/doc/1313355128.html,/techtrends/0-1544320-8-2862007-1.html.
Morkes, J., Kernal, H. K. & Nass, C. (1999). Effects of humor in task-oriented human-computer interaction and computer-mediated communication: A direct test of SRCT theory. Human-Computer Interaction, 14, 395-435.
Nass C., Steuer J. & Tauber E. (1994). Computers are Social Actors. In CHI’94 Conference Proceedings (pp.
72-77). New York: ACM Press.
Nass, C. & Lee, K.M. (2000), Does computer-generated manifest personality? An experimental test of similarity-attraction. In CHI2000 Conference Proceedings (pp. 49-57). New York: ACM Press.
Parise, S., Kilesler, S., Sproull, L. & Waters, K. (1999). Cooperating with life-like interface agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 123-142
Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1996), The Media Equation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reeves, B. & Rickenberg, R. (2000), The effects of animated characters on anxiety, task performance, and evaluations of user interface. In CHI’2000 Conference Proceedings (pp. 49-57). New York: ACM Press. Shneiderman, B. (1997). Direct manipulation versus agents: Paths to predictable, controllable, and Comprenensible interfaces. In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed.) Software Agents (pp. 97-106). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press.
Turing, A.M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433-560.
Turner, J.C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. A self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Van Mulken, S., André, E. & Müller, J. (1998). The persona effect: How substantial is it? In H. Johnson, L.
Nigay, & Roast, C. People and computers XIII: Proceedings of HCI’98, pp. 53-66. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Weizenbaum, J. (1966). Eliza – A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communication of the ACM, 9(1), 36-45
家装用尺寸一览表 Revised by Hanlin on 10 January 2021
家装用尺寸一览表 ▌标准入户门洞0.9m*2m， ▌房间门洞0.9m*2m， ▌厨房门洞0.8m*2m， ▌卫生间门洞0.7m*2m ▌客厅：长沙发：240*90*75cm长方形茶几：130*70*45cm电视柜：200*50*180cm电视离沙发：3m电视高度与电视柜高差：40到120cm走道宽度：100至120cm ▌厨房：橱柜操作台：台面高80cm左右面积90*46（最小20最大60）cm吊柜：离台面60cm左右高度在145cm到150cm餐桌：餐桌高：750—790mm。餐椅高；450—500mm。圆桌直径：二人500mm．二人800mm，四人900mm，五人1100mm，六人1100-1250mm，八人1300mm，十人l500mm，十二人1800mm。方餐桌尺寸：二人700×850(mm)，四人1350×850(mm)，八人2250×850(mm) ▌卫生间：浴缸长度：一般有三种1220、1520、1680mm；宽：720mm，高：450mm。坐便：750×350(mm)。冲洗器：690×350(mm)。盟洗盆：550×410(mm)。淋浴器高：2100mm。化妆台：长：1350mm；宽450mm。 ▌卧室：标准双人床尺寸：150*190、150*200厘米，被套的尺寸应配180*215和200*230之间的。加大双人床尺寸：180*200厘米，被套一般为200*230或220*240。床头柜宽：400毫米-600毫米，深：350毫米-450毫米高：500毫米-700毫米。衣柜：柜门尺寸，单
家具设计的基本尺寸（单位：cm） 衣橱：深度：一般60~65；推拉门：70，衣橱门宽度：40~65 推拉门：75~150，高度：190~240 矮柜：深度：35~45，柜门宽度：30-60 电视柜：深度：45-60，高度：60-70 单人床：宽度：90，105，120；长度：180，186，200，210 双人床：宽度：135，150，180；长度180，186，200，210 圆床：直径：186，212.5，242.4（常用） 室内门：宽度：80-95，医院120；高度：190，200，210，220，240 厕所、厨房门：宽度：80，90；高度：190，200，210 窗帘盒：高度：12-18；深度：单层布12；双层布16-18（实际尺寸） 沙发：单人式：长度：80-95，深度：85-90；坐垫高：35-42；背高：70-90 双人式：长度：126-150；深度：80-90 三人式：长度：175-196；深度：80-90 四人式：长度：232-252；深度80-90 茶几：小型，长方形：长度60-75，宽度45-60，高度38-50（38最佳） 中型，长方形：长度120-135；宽度38-50或者60-75 正方形：长度75-90，高度43-50 大型，长方形：长度150-180，宽度60-80，高度33-42（33最佳） 圆形：直径75，90，105，120；高度：33-42 方形：宽度90，105，120，135，150；高度33-42 书桌：固定式：深度45-70（60最佳），高度75 活动式：深度65-80，高度75-78 书桌下缘离地至少58；长度：最少90（150-180最佳） 餐桌：高度75-78（一般），西式高度68-72，一般方桌宽度120，90，75；长方桌宽度80，90，105，120；长度150，165，180，210，240 圆桌：直径90，120，135，150，180 书架：深度25-40（每一格），长度：60-120；下大上小型下方深度35-45，高度80-90活动未及顶高柜：深度45，高度180-200 木隔间墙厚：6-10；内角材排距：长度（45-60）*90
家具设计的基本尺寸（单位：厘米） 衣橱：深度：一般60~65；推拉门：70，衣橱门宽度：40~65 推拉门：75~150，高度：190~240 矮柜：?深度：35~45，柜门宽度：30-60 电视柜：深度：45-60，高度：60-70 单人床：宽度：90，105，120；长度：180，186，200，210 双人床：宽度：135，150，180；长度180，186，200，210 圆床：?直径：186，，（常用） 室内门：宽度：80-95，医院120；高度：190，200，210，220，240 厕所、厨房门：宽度：80，90；高度：190，200，210 窗帘盒：高度：12-18；深度：单层布12；双层布16-18（实际尺寸） 沙发：单人式：长度：80-95，深度：85-90；坐垫高：35-42；背高：70-90双人式：长度：126-150；深度：80-90 三人式：长度：175-196；深度：80-90 四人式：长度：232-252；深度80-90 茶几：小型，长方形：长度60-75，宽度45-60，高度38-50（38最佳） 中型，长方形：长度120-135；宽度38-50或者60-75 正方形：?长度75-90，高度43-50 大型，长方形：长度150-180，宽度60-80，高度33-42（33最佳）
圆形：直径75，90，105，120；高度：33-42 方形：宽度90，105，120，135，150；高度33-42 书桌：固定式：深度45-70（60最佳），高度75 活动式：深度65-80，高度75-78 书桌下缘离地至少58；长度：最少90（150-180最佳） 餐桌：高度75-78（一般），西式高度68-72，一般方桌宽度120，90，75； 长方桌宽度80，90，105，120；长度150，165，180，210，240 圆桌：直径90，120，135，150，180 书架：深度25-40（每一格），长度：60-120；下大上小型下方深度35-45，高度80-90 活动未及顶高柜：深度45，高度180-200 木隔间墙厚：6-10；内角材排距：长度（45-60）*90 桌类家具高度尺寸：７００ｍｍ、７２０ｍｍ、７４０ｍｍ、７６０ｍｍ四个规格； 椅凳类家具的座面高度：４００ｍｍ、４２０ｍｍ、４４０ｍｍ三个规格。 桌椅高度差应控制在２８０至３２０ｍｍ范围内。
提供全方位装修指南，装修设计知识、丰富设计案例！ 家装各种最佳尺寸标准大全! 家装最实际的规格尺寸 标准红砖24*11.5*53； 标准入户门洞0.9米*2米， 房间门洞0.9米*2米， 厨房门洞0.8米*2米， 卫生间门洞0.7米*2米， 标准水泥50kg/袋。 厨房 1.吊柜和操作台之间的距离应该是多少？ 60厘米。 从操作台到吊柜的底部，您应该确保这个距离。这样，在您可以方便烹饪的同时，还可以在吊柜里放一些小型家用电器。 2.在厨房两面相对的墙边都摆放各种家具和电器的情况下，中间应该留多大的距离才不会影响在厨房里做家务？ 120厘米。 为了能方便地打开两边家具的柜门，就一定要保证至少留出这样的距离。 150厘米。 这样的距离就可以保证在两边柜门都打开的情况下，中间再站一个人。 3.要想舒服地坐在早餐桌的周围，凳子的合适高度应该是多少？ 80厘米。 对于一张高110厘米的早餐桌来说，这是摆在它周围凳子的理想高度。因为在桌面和凳子之间还需要30厘米的空间来容下双腿。 4.吊柜应该装在多高的地方？ 145至150厘米。
提供全方位装修指南，装修设计知识、丰富设计案例！ 餐厅 1. 一个供六个人使用的餐桌有多大？ 2. 120厘米。 这是对圆形餐桌的直径要求。 140*70厘米。 这是对长方形和椭圆形捉制的尺寸要求。 2.餐桌离墙应该有多远？ 80厘米。 这个距离是包括把椅子拉出来，以及能使就餐的人方便活动的最小距离。 3.一张以对角线对墙的正方形桌子所占的面积要有多大？ 180*180平方厘米。 这是一张边长90厘米，桌角离墙面最近距离为40厘米的正方形桌子所占的最小面积。 4.桌子的标准高度应是多少？ 72厘米。 这是桌子的中等高度，而椅子是通常高度为45厘米。 5.一张供六个人使用的桌子摆起居室里要占多少面积？ 300*300厘米。 需要为直径120厘米的桌子留出空地，同时还要为在桌子四周就餐的人留出活动空间。这个方案适合于那种大客厅，面积至少达到600*350厘米。 6.吊灯和桌面之间最合适的距离应该是多少？ 70厘米。 这是能使桌面得到完整的、均匀照射的理想距离。 卫生间 1．卫生间里的用具要占多大地方？ 马桶所占的一般面积： 37厘米×60厘米。
【精华】室内装修，必须预留的最佳尺寸标准大全 2014-08-29筑龙房地产筑龙房地产 阅读引语 强烈推荐大家存的一份装修预留尺寸标准！！非常实用！！ 现在新房子的设计一般都会交给专门的设计师来做，但哪怕是专业设计师制作的设计图稿，没有实地接触的设计师可能还会存在一些设计尺寸上的死角。另 外，落实图稿的是施工队的工人，工人往往疏忽大意就会犯错。于是房子装修完了，总是小错误不断。因此小哥觉得大家有必要存一份尺寸标准，监工时要用起来 哦！且看且分享吧！ PART1：【客 厅】 【面积：20平方米～40平方米】 客厅是居室的门面，可以说对家具尺寸的要求是最严格的，多大的沙发配多大的茶几，多远的距离适合摆放电视等等，别看都是一些小数字，却足以令你的客厅成为一个舒适协调的地方。
电视组合柜的最小尺寸？ 【200×50×180厘米】 对于小户型的客厅，电视组合柜是非常实用的，这种类型的家具一般都是由大小不同的方格组成，上部比较适合摆放一些工艺品，柜体厚度至少要保持30厘米；而下部摆放电视的柜体厚度则至少要保持50厘米，同时在选购电视柜时也要考虑组合柜整体的高度和横宽与墙壁的面宽是否协调。 长沙发或是扶手沙发的椅背应该有多高？ 【85至90厘米】 沙发是用来满足人们的放松与休息的需求，所以舒适度是最重要的，这样的高度可以将头完全放在*背上，让颈部得到充分放松。如果沙发的*背和扶手过低，建议增加一个*垫来获得舒适度，如果空间不是特别宽敞，沙发应该尽量靠墙摆放。 扶手沙发与电视机之间应该预留多大的距离？
【3米左右】 这里所指的是在一个29英寸的电视与扶手沙发或和长沙发之间最短的距离，此外，摆放电视机的柜面高度应该在40厘米到120厘米之间，这样才能让看者非常舒适。 与容纳三个人的沙发搭配，多大的茶几合适呢？ 【120×70×45厘米或100×100×45厘米】 在沙发的体积很大或是两个长沙发摆在一起的情况下，矮茶几就是很好的选择，茶几的高度最好和沙发坐垫的位置持平。 目前市场上较为流行的是一种低矮的方几，材质多为实木或实木贴皮的，质感较好。 细节补充： 照明灯具距桌面的高度，白炽灯泡60瓦为100厘米，40瓦为65厘米，25瓦为50厘米，15瓦为30厘米；日光灯距桌面高度，40瓦为150厘米，30瓦为140厘米，20瓦为110厘米，8瓦为55厘米。 PART2：【餐 厅】 【面积：10平方米～20平方米】 用餐的地方是一家人团聚最多的地方，通常也是居室中较为拥挤的一个空间，因为有较多的餐椅需要放置，也是家人同时集中的地方，所以它的尺寸就更要精打细算才能使餐厅成为一个温馨的地方。
家具设计地基本尺寸（单位：） 衣橱：深度：一般；推拉门：，衣橱门宽度： 推拉门：，高度： 矮柜：深度：，柜门宽度： 电视柜：深度：，高度： 单人床：宽度：，，；长度：，，， 双人床：宽度：，，；长度，，， 圆床：直径：，，（常用） 室内门：宽度：，医院；高度：，，，， 厕所、厨房门：宽度：，；高度：，， 窗帘盒：高度：；深度：单层布；双层布（实际尺寸） 沙发：单人式：长度：，深度：；坐垫高：；背高： 双人式：长度：；深度： 三人式：长度：；深度： 四人式：长度：；深度 茶几：小型，长方形：长度，宽度，高度（最佳） 中型，长方形：长度；宽度或者 正方形：长度，高度 大型，长方形：长度，宽度，高度（最佳） 圆形：直径，，，；高度： 方形：宽度，，，，；高度 书桌：固定式：深度（最佳），高度 活动式：深度，高度 书桌下缘离地至少；长度：最少（最佳） 餐桌：高度（一般），西式高度，一般方桌宽度，，；长方桌宽度，，，；长度，，，，圆桌：直径，，，， 书架：深度（每一格），长度：；下大上小型下方深度，高度 活动未及顶高柜：深度，高度 木隔间墙厚：；内角材排距：长度（）* 室内常用尺寸 、墙面尺寸 ()踢脚板高；—. ()墙裙高：—. ()挂镜线高：—(画中心距地面高度). ．餐厅
() 餐桌高：—. () 餐椅高；—. () 圆桌直径：二人．二人，四人，五人，六人，八人，十人，十二人. () 方餐桌尺寸：二人×()，四人×()，八人×()， () 餐桌转盘直径；—. 餐桌间距：(其中座椅占)应大于. () 主通道宽：—. 内部工作道宽：—. () 酒吧台高：—，宽. () 酒吧凳高；一. 在客厅 .长沙发与摆在它面前地茶几之间地正确距离是多少？ 厘米 在一个（**高厘米）地长沙发面前摆放一个（**高厘米）地长方形茶几是非常舒适地.两者之间地理想距离应该是能允许你一个人通过地同时又便于使用，也就是说不用站起来就可以方便地拿到桌上地杯子或者杂志. b5E2R。 .一个能摆放电视机地大型组合柜地最小尺寸应该是多少？ **高厘米 这种类型地家具一般都是由大小不同地方格组成，高处部分比较适合用来摆放书籍，柜体厚度至少保持厘米；而低处用于摆放电视地柜体厚度至少保持厘米.同时组合柜整体地高度和横宽还要考虑与墙壁地面积相协调..如果摆放可容纳三、四个人地沙发，那么应该选择多大地茶几来搭配呢？ **高厘米 在沙发地体积很大或是两个长沙发摆在一起地情况下，矮茶几就是很好地选择，高度最好和沙发坐垫地位置持平. .在扶手沙发和电视机之间应该预留多大地距离？ 米 这里所指地是在一个英寸地电视与扶手沙发或长沙发之间最短地距离.此外，摆放电视机地柜面高度应该在厘米到厘米之间，这样才能使观众保持正确地坐姿. .摆在沙发边上茶几地理想尺寸是多少？ 方形：**高厘米. 椭圆形：*高厘米. 放在沙发边上地咖啡桌应该有一个不是特别大地桌面，但要选那种较高地类型，这样即使坐着地时候也能方便舒适地取到桌上地东西. p1Ean。 .两个面对面放着地沙发和摆放在中间地茶几一共需要占据多大地空间？ 两个双人沙发（规格 **高厘米）和茶几（规格**高厘米）之间应相距厘米. .长沙发或是扶手沙发地地靠背应该有多高？
装修常用家具尺寸 在工地 1、标准红砖23*11*6；标准入户门洞0.9米*2米，房间门洞0.9米*2米，厨房门洞0.8米*2米，卫生间门洞0.7米*2米，标准水泥50kg/袋。 在厨房 1.吊柜和操作台之间的距离应该是多少？ 60厘米。 从操作台到吊柜的底部，您应该确保这个距离。这样，在您可以方便烹饪的同时，还可以在吊柜里放一些小型家用电器。 2.在厨房两面相对的墙边都摆放各种家具和电器的情况下，中间应该留多大的距离才不会影响在厨房里做家务？ 120厘米。 为了能方便地打开两边家具的柜门，就一定要保证至少留出这样的距离。 150厘米。 这样的距离就可以保证在两边柜门都打开的情况下，中间再站一个人。 3.要想舒服地坐在早餐桌的周围，凳子的合适高度应该是多少？ 80厘米。 对于一张高110厘米的早餐桌来说，这是摆在它周围凳子的理想高度。因为在桌面和凳子之间还需要30厘米的空间来容下双腿。
4.吊柜应该装在多高的地方？ 145至150厘米。 这个高度可以使您不用垫起脚尖就能打开吊柜的门。 在餐厅 1.一个供六个人使用的餐桌有多大？ 120厘米。 这是对圆形餐桌的直径要求。 140*70厘米。 这是对长方形和椭圆形捉制的尺寸要求。 2.餐桌离墙应该有多远？ 80厘米。 这个距离是包括把椅子拉出来，以及能使就餐的人方便活动的最小距离。 3.一张以对角线对墙的正方形桌子所占的面积要有多大？ 180*180平方厘米 这是一张边长90厘米，桌角离墙面最近距离为40厘米的正方形桌子所占的最小面积。 4.桌子的标准高度应是多少？ 72厘米。
这是桌子的中等高度，而椅子是通常高度为45厘米。 5.一张供六个人使用的桌子摆起居室里要占多少面积？ 300*300厘米。 需要为直径120厘米的桌子留出空地，同时还要为在桌子四周就餐的人留出活动空间。这个方案适合于那种大客厅，面积至少达到600*350厘米。 6.吊灯和桌面之间最合适的距离应该是多少？ 70厘米。 这是能使桌面得到完整的、均匀照射的理想距离。 在卫生间 1．卫生间里的用具要占多大地方？ 马桶所占的一般面积：37厘米×60厘米 悬挂式或圆柱式盥洗池可能占用的面积：70厘米×60厘米 正方形淋浴间的面积：80厘米×80厘米 浴缸的标准面积：160厘米×70厘米 2．浴缸与对面的墙之间的距离要有多远？ 100厘米。想要在周围活动的话这是个合理的距离。即使浴室很窄，也要在安装浴缸时留出走动的空间。总之浴缸和其他墙面或物品之间至少要有60厘米的距离。
干货│家装尺寸数据大全，大家快掏 出小本本记好了！ 一、那些在工地的数据 (3) 二、那些在客厅涉及的家装数据 (4) 三、那些在厨房涉及到的家装数据 (8) 四、那些在餐厅涉及到的家装数据 (9) 五、那些在卫生间涉及到的家装数据 (11)
装修从来不是一件一蹴而就的事 它是一项关乎未来几十年生活质量的细活儿 可以精确到一丝一毫 因此了解一些家具尺寸的数据是非常必要的常识 为了有效避免以下惨烈装修车祸现场 比如心爱的沙发多出一块经常绊倒人 又比如一眼看中的床卧室竟然放不下······
下面各位装修的宝宝赶紧来围观一起涨姿势 一、那些在工地的数据 1、标准红砖23*11*6; 2、标准入户门洞0.9米*2米， 3、房间门洞0.9米*2米， 4、厨房门洞0.8米*2米， 5、卫生间门洞0.7米*2米， 6、标准水泥50kg/袋。
二、那些在客厅涉及的家装数据 1.长沙发与摆放在它面前的茶几之间的正确距离是多少？ 30厘米在一个（240*90*75高厘米）的长沙发面前摆放一个（130*70*45高厘米）的长方形茶几是非常舒适的。两者之间的理想距离应该是能允许你一个人通过的同时又便于使用，也就是说不用站起来就可以方便地拿到桌上的杯子或者杂志。 2.一个能摆放电视机的大型组合柜的最小尺寸应该是多少？ 200*50*180厘米这种类型的家具一般都是由大小不同的方格组成，高处部分比较适合用来摆放书籍，柜体厚度至少保持30厘米；而低处用于摆放电视的柜体
厚度至少保持50厘米。同时组合柜整体的高度和横宽还要考虑与墙壁的面积相协调。 3.如果摆放可容纳三、四个人的沙发，那么应该选择多大的茶几来搭配呢？140*70*45高厘米。在沙发的体积很大或是两个长沙发摆在一起的情况下，矮茶几就是很好的选择，高度最好和沙发坐垫的位置持平。 4.在扶手沙发和电视机之间应该预留多大的距离？ 3米。这里所指的是在一个25英寸的电视与扶手沙发或长沙发之间最短的距离。此外，摆放电视机的柜面高度应该在40厘米到120厘米之间，这样才能使观众保持正确的坐姿。
1.商品图片的尺寸：宽500*高500像素，大小在120KB以内，要求JPG或GIF格式，到发布宝贝页面上上传图片。最好大于312*310px 2.店标图片的尺寸：宽100*高100像素，大小在80K以内，支持JPG或GIF格式，动态或静态的图片均可。上传步骤：“管理我的店铺”-“基本设置”-“店标”-“浏览”-“确定” 3.宝贝描述图片的尺寸：没有特殊要求，可根据需要宽500*高500像素，大小在100K以内，这样图片的打开速度较快。要求JPG或GIF格式，静态或动态均可。将图片上传到电子相册，再复制到商品页面中去。 4.公告栏图片的尺寸：宽不超过480像素，长度不限制，大小在120KB以内GIF或JPG格式，动态或者静态均可。上传“管理我的店铺”-“基本设置”-“公告栏”-“确定”。 5.宝贝分类图片尺寸：宽不超过165,长度不限制，大小在50KB以内，要求GIF或JPG格式，动态或者静态均可，先将图片上传到电子相册得到一个缩短网址后进入“管理我的店铺”-“基本设置”-“宝贝分类” 6.旺旺头像图片尺寸：宽120*高120像素，大小在100KB以内，格式为JPG或GIF，动态或者静态均可。 7.论坛头像图片尺寸：最大为宽120*高120像素，大小在100KB以内，GIF或者JPG格式，动态或者静态图片均可。上传方法“我的淘宝”-“个人空间”-“修改资料”-“上传新头像”。 8.论坛签名档图片尺寸：宽468*高60像素，大小在100KB以内，JPG或者GIF格式，动态或者静态均可，上传“我的淘宝”-“个人空间 淘宝店铺装修最佳尺寸 普通店铺 1.店标 大小：100*100px <=80k 代码：无（图片做好后直接上传） 格式：jpg、gif 设置：管理我的店铺—基本设置—店标—浏览—选择本地做好店标文件 2. 店铺公告尺寸：320*400 3.宝贝分类尺寸:88*88和88*30（宝贝分类含3个) 4.店铺介绍尺寸：600*450 5.计数器尺寸:137*94 6.论坛签名尺寸:468*60
家里装修，最重要的是什么？ 不是缤纷夺目的软装搭配设计，也不是酷炫十足的多功能变化装置，而是严格把控每一个细节尺寸，保证在装修完毕之后，根本的硬件设施合乎人体工程学的基本要求，让家里每个人住着舒适开心，这才是最重要的。这里，不仅整理出了完善的室内常见尺寸，更有一些独具风格的创意设计尺寸，让家装不再是难事。 室内常见家具的基本尺寸（单位：cm） 客厅篇 沙发： 单人式：长度：80-95，深度：85-90；坐垫高：35-42；背高：70-90 双人式：长度：126-150；深度：80-90 三人式：长度：175-196；深度：80-90 四人式：长度：232-252；深度80-90 茶几： 小型，长方形：长度60-75，宽度45-60，高度38-50（38最佳） 中型，长方形：长度120-135；宽度38-50或者60-75 正方形：长度75-90，高度43-50 大型，长方形：长度150-180，宽度60-80，高度33-42（33最佳） 圆形：直径75，90，105，120；高度：33-42 方形：宽度90，105，120，135，150；高度33-42 墙面尺寸： (1)踢脚板高：8—20 (2)墙裙高：80—150
(3)挂镜线高：160—180(画中心距地面高度) 厕所、厨房门：宽度：80，90；高度：190，200，210 窗帘盒：高度：12-18；深度：单层布12；双层布16-18（实际尺寸） 厨房餐厅篇 餐桌高：75—79 餐椅高：45—50 圆桌直径：二人50，二人80，四人90，五人110，六人110-125，八人130，十人l50，十二人180。 方餐桌尺寸：二人70×85，四人135×85，八人225×85 餐桌转盘直径：70—80 餐桌间距：(其中座椅占50)应大于50 主通道宽：120—130 内部工作道宽：60—90 酒吧台高：90—l05，宽50 酒吧凳高：60一75 卧室篇 衣橱：深度：一般60~65；推拉门：70，衣橱门宽度：40~65 推拉门：75~150，高度：190~240 矮柜：深度：35~45，柜门宽度：30-60 电视柜：深度：45-60，高度：60-70 单人床：宽度：90，105，120；长度：180，186，200，210 双人床：宽度：135，150，180；长度：180，186，200，210 圆床：直径：186，212.5，242.4（常用） 室内门：宽度：80-95，医院120；高度：190，200，210，220，240 书桌：固定式：深度45-70（60最佳），高度75 活动式：深度65-80，高度75-78 书桌下缘离地至少58；长度：最少90（150-180最佳） 圆桌：直径90，120，135，150，180 书架：深度25-40（每一格），长度：60-120；下大上小型下方深度35-45，高度80-90 木隔间墙厚：6-10；内角材排距：长度（45-60）*90 室内常用尺寸（单位：cm） 客厅篇 1.长沙发与茶几之间的距离 =30cm 在一个（240*90*75）的长沙发面前摆放一个（130*70*45）的长方形茶几是非常舒适的。是能允许一人通过的同时又便于使用的理想距离。 2.一个能摆放电视机的大型组合柜的最小尺寸=200*50*180 这种类型的家具一般都是由大小不同的方格组成，高处部分比较适合用来摆放书籍，柜体厚度至少保持30厘米；而低处用于摆放电视的柜体厚度至少保持50厘米。同时组合柜整体的高度和横宽还要考虑与墙壁的面积相协调。 3.如果摆放可容纳三、四个人的沙发，应该选择搭配的茶几大小=140*70*45
家具设计标准尺寸 家具设计的基本尺寸（单位：厘米 衣橱：深度：一般60~65；推拉门：70，衣橱门宽度：40~65 推拉门：75~150，高度：190~240 矮柜：深度：35~45，柜门宽度：30-60 电视柜：深度：45-60，高度：60-70 单人床：宽度：90，105，120；长度：180，186，200，210 双人床：宽度：135，150，180；长度180，186，200，210 圆床：直径：186，212.5，242.4（常用） 室内门：宽度：80-95，医院120；高度：190，200，210，220，240 厕所、厨房门：宽度：80，90；高度：190，200，210 窗帘盒：高度：12-18；深度：单层布12；双层布16-18（实际尺寸） 沙发：单人式：长度：80-95，深度：85-90；坐垫高：35-42；背高：70-90 双人式：长度：126-150；深度：80-90 三人式：长度：175-196；深度：80-90 四人式：长度：232-252；深度80-90 茶几：小型，长方形：长度60-75，宽度45-60，高度38-50（38最佳 中型，长方形：长度120-135；宽度38-50或者60-75 正方形：长度75-90，高度43-50 大型，长方形：长度150-180，宽度60-80，高度33-42（33最佳） 圆形：直径75，90，105，120；高度：33-42 方形：宽度90，105，120，135，150；高度33-42 书桌：固定式：深度45-70（60最佳），高度75 活动式：深度65-80，高度75-78 书桌下缘离地至少58；长度：最少90（150-180最佳） 餐桌：高度75-78（一般），西式高度68-72，一般方桌宽度120，90，75； 长方桌宽度80，90，105，120；长度150，165，180，210，240 圆桌：直径90，120，135，150，180 书架：深度25-40（每一格），长度：60-120；下大上小型下方深度35-45，高度80-90 活动未及顶高柜：深度45，高度180-200 木隔间墙厚：6-10；内角材排距：长度（45-60）*90 室内家具尺寸标准大全 ●电视柜尺寸： 电视组合柜最小尺寸：2000×500×1800毫米。 电视组合柜厚度：上部至少要300毫米，下部摆放电视的柜体至少要500毫米。电视柜面高度：在400—1200毫米，另一说在400－520毫米，又一说600—700毫米。电视柜：深度450—600毫米，高度600-700毫米。●沙发尺寸：
客厅尺寸篇（单位：mm） 01、沙发尺寸：一般深度800~900、坐位高350~420、背高700~900 单人式：长度：800-950，深度：850-900坐垫高：350-420；背高：70-90 双人式：长度：1260-1500；深度：800-900 三人式：长度：1750-1960；深度：800-900 四人式：长度：2320-2520；深度：800-900 02、茶几尺寸：茶几高度一般在330~420，但边角茶几有时稍高一些，为430~500 03、沙发和茶几之间的距离一般控制在300比较合适 04、一般电视机和沙发之间最短距离控制在3000 05、放置台式电视机的柜台高度，一般控制在400到1200之间 06、液晶电视机壁挂高度一般控制在电视机屏幕的中心点和观看电视时的视线平行，一般在1100，常规控制在1000-1500 餐厅尺寸篇（单位：mm） 一、餐桌尺寸 圆桌直径：二人500、三人800、四人900、五人1100、六人1200 （前几种规格圆桌人均占有弧长为600－800，以满负荷使用计算，一般固定其尺寸来使用） 八人1300-1400，十人1500-l600，十二人1800-2000 （此类推下去规格，人均占弧长控制在500-550，考虑非满负荷使用状况（餐桌转盘直径；700—800） 方桌尺寸: 此只探讨长条方桌，因正方方桌可通过长条方桌来推算其所需尺寸：一般短边控制在800－850， 长边则按人均占有计算：控制在550-700，接近700为佳。 二、餐桌一般高：750—790，餐椅一般高；450—500mm 三、酒吧台高一般：900—l050，宽500，酒吧凳高；600一750
家居装修设计常规尺寸大全【人体工程学尺寸】 一、人体工程学尺寸参考【单位：cm】 1、体重：（男：68.9 女：56.7） 2、身高：（男：173.5 女：159.8） 3、座直臀至头顶的高度：（男： 90.7 女：84.8） 4、两肘间的宽度：（男：41.9 女：38.4） 5、肘下支撑物的高度：（男：24.1 女：23.4） 6、座姿大腿的高度：（男：14.5 女：13.7） 7、座姿膝盖至地面的高度：（男：54.4 女：49.8） 8、坐姿臀部至腿弯的长度：（男：49.0 女：48.0） 9、坐姿臀宽：（男：35.6 女：36.3） 10、活动空间（可蹲空间）男：1220～1470 女：1160～1320 【家装】 一、常用室内基本尺寸【单位：mm】 1、支撑墙体：厚度2400 2、室内隔墙断墙体：厚度1200 3、木隔间墙厚：60～100——内角材排距：长度（45～60）*90 4、窗帘盒：高度：120～180——深度：单层布120—双层布160～180 5、玄关：宽1000——墙厚2400 6、阳台：宽1400～1600——长3000～4000（一般与客厅的长度相同） 7、踏步：高1500～1600——长990～1150——宽250 扶手宽100——扶手间距200——中间的休息平台宽1000 8、踢脚板高：80～200 9、墙裙高：800～1500 10、挂镜线高：1600～1800(画中心距地面高度) 11、楼梯:850～1000 12、栏杆:高度：800～1100 13、房间内通道: 宽度：650（最小） 14、餐桌后通道：宽度：750 (其中座椅占500mm) 15、人肩宽520（400～450不能通过），可通行距离760～910 16、过道:宽度：900～1200
家装用尺寸一览表标准化管理处编码[BBX968T-XBB8968-NNJ668-MM9N]
家装用尺寸一览表 ▌标准入户门洞*2m， ▌房间门洞*2m， ▌厨房门洞*2m， ▌卫生间门洞*2m ▌客厅：长沙发：240*90*75cm 长方形茶几：130*70*45cm电视柜：200*50*180cm 电视离沙发：3m 电视高度与电视柜高差：40到120cm 走道宽度：100至120cm ▌厨房：橱柜操作台：台面高80cm左右面积90*46（最小20最大60）cm 吊柜：离台面60cm左右高度在145cm到150cm餐桌：餐桌高：750—790mm。餐椅高；450— 500mm。圆桌直径：二人500mm．二人800mm，四人900mm，五人1100mm，六人1100-1250mm，八人1300mm，十人l500mm，十二人1800mm。方餐桌尺寸：二人700× 850(mm)，四人1350×850(mm)，八人2250×850(mm) ▌卫生间：浴缸长度：一般有三种1220、1520、1680mm；宽：720mm，高：450mm。坐便：750×350(mm)。冲洗器：690×350(mm)。盟洗盆：550×410(mm)。淋浴器高：2100mm。化妆台：长：1350mm；宽450 mm。 ▌卧室：标准双人床尺寸：150*190、150*200厘米，被套的尺寸应配180*215和200*230之间的。加大双人床尺寸：180*200厘米，被套一般为200*230或220*240。床头柜宽：400毫米-600毫米，深：350毫米-450毫米高：500毫米-700毫米。衣柜：柜门尺寸，单扇一门宽度不超过1200mm，高度不超过2400mm。挂衣区尺寸，上衣区高度在100cm-120cm，不低于90cm，宽度在40cm；长衣区是140cm-150cm指间，不低于130cm，宽度在40cm。裤架尺寸。柜子的深度一般在600-650mm之间，那么裤架的深度范围在490- 540mm，宽度不限。 ▌灯具：大吊灯最小高度：2400mm。壁灯高：1500—1800mm。反光灯槽最小直径：等于或大于灯管直径两倍。壁式床头灯高：1200—1400mm。照明开关高：1000mm。 ▌插座、开关：
最完整家装尺寸大全 最完整家装尺寸大全 最完整家装尺寸大全 衣橱：深度：一般60~65;推拉门：70,衣橱门宽度：40~65 推拉门：75~150,高度：190~240 矮柜：深度：35~45,柜门宽度：30-60 电视柜：深度：45-60,高度：60-70 单人床：宽度：90,105,120;长度：200,210 双人床：宽度：135,150,180;长度：200,210 圆床：直径：186,212.5,242.4（常用） 室内门：宽度：80-95,医院120;高度：190,200,210,220,240 厕所、厨房门：宽度：80,90;高度：190,200,210 窗帘盒：高度：12-18;深度：单层布12;双层布16-18（实际尺寸） 沙发：单人式：长度：80-95,深度：85-90;坐垫高：35-42; 背高：70-90 双人式：长度：126-150;深度：80-90 三人式：长度：175-196;深度：80-90 四人式：长度：232-252;深度80-90 茶几：小型，长方形：长度60-75,宽度45-60,高度38-50（38最佳）
中型，长方形：长度120-135;宽度38-50或者60-75 正方形：长度75-90,高度43-50 大型，长方形：长度150-180,宽度60-80,高度33-42（33最佳） 圆形：直径75,90,105,120;高度：33-42 方形：宽度90,105,120,135,150;高度33-42 书桌：固定式：深度45-70（60最佳），高度75 活动式：深度65-80,高度75-78 书桌下缘离地至少58;长度：最少90（150-180最佳） 餐桌：高度75-78（一般），西式高度68-72,一般方桌宽度120,90,75;长方桌宽度80,90,105,120;长度 150,165,180,210,240 圆桌：直径90,120,135,150,180 书架：深度25-40（每一格），长度：60-120;下大上小型下方深度35-45,高度80-90 活动未及顶高柜：深度45,高度180-200 木隔间墙厚：6-10;内角材排距：长度（45-60）*90 1 室内常用尺寸 1、墙面尺寸 （1）踢脚板高；80—200mm. （2）墙裙高：800—1500mm.
在工地 1、标准红砖23*11*6； 标准入户门洞0.9米*2米， 房间门洞0.9米*2米， 厨房门洞0.8米*2米， 卫生间门洞0.7米*2米， 标准水泥50kg/袋。 在厨房 1.吊柜和操作台之间的距离应该是多少？ 60厘米。 从操作台到吊柜的底部，您应该确保这个距离。这样，在您可以方便烹饪的同时，还可以在吊柜里放一些小型家用电器。 2.在厨房两面相对的墙边都摆放各种家具和电器的情况下，中间应该留多大的距离才不会影响在厨房里做家务？ 120厘米。 为了能方便地打开两边家具的柜门，就一定要保证至少留出这样的距离。 150厘米。 这样的距离就可以保证在两边柜门都打开的情况下，中间再站一个人。 3.要想舒服地坐在早餐桌的周围，凳子的合适高度应该是多少？ 80厘米。 对于一张高110厘米的早餐桌来说，这是摆在它周围凳子的理想高度。因为在桌面和凳子之间还需要30厘米的空间来容下双腿。 4.吊柜应该装在多高的地方？ 145至150厘米。 在餐厅 1.一个供六个人使用的餐桌有多大？ 120厘米。
这是对圆形餐桌的直径要求。 140*70厘米。 这是对长方形和椭圆形捉制的尺寸要求。 2.餐桌离墙应该有多远？ 80厘米。 这个距离是包括把椅子拉出来，以及能使就餐的人方便活动的最小距离。 3.一张以对角线对墙的正方形桌子所占的面积要有多大？ 180*180平方厘米 这是一张边长90厘米，桌角离墙面最近距离为40厘米的正方形桌子所占的最小面积。 4.桌子的标准高度应是多少？ 72厘米。 这是桌子的中等高度，而椅子是通常高度为45厘米。 5.一张供六个人使用的桌子摆起居室里要占多少面积？ 300*300厘米。 需要为直径120厘米的桌子留出空地，同时还要为在桌子四周就餐的人留出活动空间。这个方案适合于那种大客厅，面积至少达到600*350厘米。 6.吊灯和桌面之间最合适的距离应该是多少？ 70厘米。 这是能使桌面得到完整的、均匀照射的理想距离。 在卫生间 1．卫生间里的用具要占多大地方？ 马桶所占的一般面积：37厘米×60厘米 悬挂式或圆柱式盥洗池可能占用的面积：70厘米×60厘米 正方形淋浴间的面积：80厘米×80厘米 浴缸的标准面积：160厘米×70厘米 2．浴缸与对面的墙之间的距离要有多远？ 100厘米。想要在周围活动的话这是个合理的距离。即使浴室很窄，也要在安装浴缸时留出走动的空间。总之浴缸和其他墙面或物品之间至少要有60厘米的距离。 3．安装一个盥洗池，并能方便地使用，需要的空间是多大？ 90厘米×105厘米。这个尺寸适用于中等大小的盥洗池，并能容下另一个人在旁边洗漱。4．两个洗手洁具之间应该预留多少距离？ 20厘米。这个距离包括马桶和盥洗池之间，或者洁具和墙壁之间的距离。 5．相对摆放的澡盆和马桶之间应该保持多远距离？ 60厘米。这是能从中间通过的最小距离，所以一个能相向摆放的澡盆和马桶的洗手间应该至少有180厘米宽。 6．要想在里侧墙边安装下一个浴缸的话，洗手间至少应该有多宽？ 180厘米。这个距离对于传统浴缸来说是非常合适的。如果浴室比较窄的话，就要考虑安装小型的带座位的浴缸了。
家装用尺寸一览表 ■标准入户门洞0.9m*2m, ■房间门洞0.9m*2m, ■厨房门洞0.8m*2m ■卫生间门洞0.7m*2m ■客厅：长沙发：240*90*75cm?长方形茶几：130*70*45cm 电视柜：200*50*180cm?? 电视离沙发：3m?电视高度与电视柜高差：40到120cm徒道宽度：100至120cm ■厨房：橱柜操作台：台面高80cm左右？面积90*46 (最小20最大60) cm?吊柜： 离台面60cm左右？?高度在145cm到150cm餐桌：餐桌高：750—790mm餐椅高；450 —500mm圆桌直径：二人500mm二人800mm四人900mm五人1100mm六人1100-1250mm 八人1300mm十人1500mm 十二人1800mm方餐桌尺寸：二人700 x 850(mm),四人1350x 850(mm),八人2250X 850(mm) ■卫生间：浴缸长度：一般有三种1220、1520、1680mm宽：720mm高：450mm 坐便：750x 350(mm> 冲洗器：690x 350(mm> 盟洗盆：550x 410(mm)o 淋浴器高： 2100mm 化妆台：长：1350mm 宽450mm ? ■卧室：标准双人床尺寸：150*190、150*200厘米，被套的尺寸应配180*215和 200*230之间的。加大双人床尺寸：180*200厘米，被套一般为200*230或220*240。 床头柜宽：400毫米-600毫米，深：350毫米-450毫米高：500毫米-700毫米。衣柜：柜门尺寸，单扇一门宽度不超过1200mm高度不超过2400mm挂衣区尺寸，上衣区高度在100cm-120cm不低于90cm宽度在40cm长衣区是140cm-150cm指间，
家装各种最佳尺寸标准大全
在客厅 1.长沙发与摆在它面前的茶几之间的正确距离是多少？30厘米 2.一个能摆放电视机的大型组合柜的最小尺寸应该是多少？200*50*180高厘米 3.如果摆放可容纳三、四个人的沙发，那么应该选择多大的茶几来搭配呢？140*70*45高厘米 4.在扶手沙发和电视机之间应该预留多大的距离？3米 5.摆在沙发边上茶几的理想尺寸是多少？方形：70*70*60高厘米。椭圆形：70*60高厘米。 6.两个面对面放着的沙发和摆放在中间的茶几一共需要占据多大的空间？ 两个双人沙发（规格 160*90*80高厘米）和茶几（规格100*60*45高厘米）之间应相距30厘米。 7.长沙发或是扶手沙发的的靠背应该有多高？85至90厘米。 8.如果客厅位于房间的中央，后面想要留出一个走道空间，这个走道应该有多宽？100至120厘米。 9.两个对角摆放的长沙发，它们之间的最小距离应该是多少？10厘米。 在餐厅 1.一个供六个人使用的餐桌有多大？ 120厘米。这是对圆形餐桌的直径要求。 140*70厘米。这是对长方形和椭圆形捉制的尺寸要求。 2.餐桌离墙应该有多远？80厘米。 3.一张以对角线对墙的正方形桌子所占的面积要有多大？180*180平方厘米 4.桌子的标准高度应是多少？72厘米。 5.一张供六个人使用的桌子摆起居室里要占多少面积？300*300厘米。 6.吊灯和桌面之间最合适的距离应该是多少？70厘米。 在卧室 1、双人主卧室的最标准面积是多少？12平方米 2、如果把床斜放在角落里，要留出多大空间？360*360厘米 3、两张并排摆放的床之间的距离应该有多远？90厘米 4、如果衣柜被放在了与床相对的墙边，那么两件家具这间的距离应该是多少？90厘米 5、衣柜应该有多高？240厘米 6、要想容的下双人床、两个床头柜外加衣柜的侧面的话，一面墙应该有多大？420*420厘米 在厨房 1.吊柜和操作台之间的距离应该是多少？60厘米。 2.在厨房两面相对的墙边都摆放各种家具和电器的情况下，中间应该留多大的距离才不会影响在厨房里做家务？120厘米。 3.要想舒服地坐在早餐桌的周围，凳子的合适高度应该是多少？80厘米。 4.吊柜应该装在多高的地方？145至150厘米。
家装用尺寸一览表 ▌标准入户门洞0.9m*2m， ▌房间门洞0.9m*2m， ▌厨房门洞0.8m*2m， ▌卫生间门洞0.7m*2m ▌客厅：长沙发：240*90*75cm 长方形茶几：130*70*45cm电视柜：200*50*180cm 电视离沙发：3m 电视高度与电视柜高差：40到120cm 走道宽度：100至120cm ▌厨房：橱柜操作台：台面高80cm左右面积90*46（最小20最大60）cm 吊柜：离台面60cm左右高度在145cm到150cm 餐桌：餐桌高：750—790mm。餐椅高；450—500mm。圆桌直径：二人500mm．二人800mm，四人900mm，五人1100mm，六人1100-1250mm，八人1300mm，十人l500mm，十二人1800mm。方餐桌尺寸：二人700×850(mm)，四人1350×850(mm)，八人2250×850(mm) ▌卫生间：浴缸长度：一般有三种1220、1520、1680mm；宽：720mm，高：450mm。坐便：750×350(mm)。冲洗器：690×350(mm)。盟洗盆：550×410(mm)。淋浴器高：2100mm。化妆台：长：1350mm；宽450 mm。
▌卧室：标准双人床尺寸：150*190、150*200厘米，被套的尺寸应配180*215和200*230之间的。加大双人床尺寸：180*200厘米，被套一般为200*230或220*240。床头柜宽：400毫米-600毫米，深：350毫米-450毫米高：500毫米-700毫米。衣柜：柜门尺寸，单扇一门宽度不超过1200mm，高度不超过2400mm。挂衣区尺寸，上衣区高度在100cm-120cm，不低于90cm，宽度在40cm；长衣区是 140cm-150cm指间，不低于130cm，宽度在40cm。裤架尺寸。柜子的深度一般在600-650mm之间，那么裤架的深度范围在490-540mm，宽度不限。 ▌灯具：大吊灯最小高度：2400mm。壁灯高：1500—1800mm。反光灯槽最小直径：等于或大于灯管直径两倍。壁式床头灯高：1200—1400mm。照明开关高：1000mm。 ▌插座、开关： 客厅： 1）除特殊要求以外一般低插300mm、增加插座要与原插座持平。总电箱1850mm 2）背景墙插座。在电视柜下面的200一250mm.在电视柜上面的450一500mm.在挂电视中的1100mm. 卧室