meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
menu_design [2018/08/21 11:30] 127.0.0.1 external edit |
menu_design [2019/08/08 11:33] (current) lisa.illgen_concentrix.com Added Anchor Links |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| HMWSE is an acronym for "help me with something else." When you need to go deep, it is better to use this sort of phrase in a menu (or a variant thereof) instead of the more frequently over-used "more options." | HMWSE is an acronym for "help me with something else." When you need to go deep, it is better to use this sort of phrase in a menu (or a variant thereof) instead of the more frequently over-used "more options." | ||
| - | Hunter (2009) reports a quasi-experiment where they report that "many of those who used “more options” seemed to be exhibiting surfing behavior triggered by that phrase. That is, they wanted to hear and think about all possible choices before committing to one because “more options” seemed to mean “more options that you might want to hear before you make a decision”. This frequently led, though, to failures in the menus as callers encountered cognitive load problems having to hold all the choices and their possible meanings in mind. Callers who heard and used HMWSE, however, did not encounter nearly the same number of problems. They were not surfing but rather, and this is the key point, they were listening to and then rejecting previously heard choices when they said HMWSE... Callers clearly preferred not to surf, but to have a way to eliminate choices. | + | [[references#hunter|Hunter]] (2009) reports a quasi-experiment where they report that "many of those who used “more options” seemed to be exhibiting surfing behavior triggered by that phrase. That is, they wanted to hear and think about all possible choices before committing to one because “more options” seemed to mean “more options that you might want to hear before you make a decision”. This frequently led, though, to failures in the menus as callers encountered cognitive load problems having to hold all the choices and their possible meanings in mind. Callers who heard and used HMWSE, however, did not encounter nearly the same number of problems. They were not surfing but rather, and this is the key point, they were listening to and then rejecting previously heard choices when they said HMWSE... Callers clearly preferred not to surf, but to have a way to eliminate choices. |
| "Help me with something else" allowed them to hear, absorb, then discard choices they did not consider valid and specify to the system that new choices should be presented. | "Help me with something else" allowed them to hear, absorb, then discard choices they did not consider valid and specify to the system that new choices should be presented. | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| ==== Supporting Research ==== | ==== Supporting Research ==== | ||
| - | As noted above, most early auditory menu design guidelines suggested a limit of four to five options per menu (Gardner-Bonneau, 1992; Gould, Boies, Levy, Richards, & Schoonard, 1987; Marics & Engelbeck, 1997; Schumacher, Hardzinski, & Schwartz, 1995; Voice Messaging User Interface Forum, 1990), a recommendation carried forward into current SUI design by many practitioners and researchers (Balentine & Morgan, 2001; Cohen, Giangola, & Balogh, 2004; Suhm, 2008, Wilkie, McInnes, Jack & Littlewood, 2007). The cited rationale for this limit is generally Miller’s famous (1956) paper about the magic number 7±2, part of which described experiments demonstrating that people have trouble remembering more than about 7 (plus or minus 2) items at a time due to limits in human working memory (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). There is a potential tradeoff here, however, because for a given total number of options, restricting the number of options per menu necessarily leads to a deeper rather than a broader menu structure and, as recent research has shown, cognitive loads associated with menu navigation can be more problematic than those associated with selecting an option from a list. | + | As noted above, most early auditory menu design guidelines suggested a limit of four to five options per menu ([[references#gardner-bonneau1992|Gardner-Bonneau, 1992]]; [[references#gould|Gould, Boies, Levy, Richards, & Schoonard, 1987]]; [[references#marics|Marics & Engelbeck, 1997]]; [[references#schumacher|Schumacher, Hardzinski, & Schwartz, 1995]]; [[references#voice|Voice Messaging User Interface Forum, 1990]]), a recommendation carried forward into current SUI design by many practitioners and researchers ([[references#balentine2001|Balentine & Morgan, 2001]]; [[references#cohen|Cohen, Giangola, & Balogh, 2004]]; [[references#suhm2008|Suhm, 2008]], [[references#wilkie|Wilkie, McInnes, Jack & Littlewood, 2007]]). The cited rationale for this limit is generally Miller’s famous ([[references#miller1956|1956]]) paper about the magic number 7±2, part of which described experiments demonstrating that people have trouble remembering more than about 7 (plus or minus 2) items at a time due to limits in human working memory ([[references#baddeley|Baddeley & Hitch, 1974]]). There is a potential tradeoff here, however, because for a given total number of options, restricting the number of options per menu necessarily leads to a deeper rather than a broader menu structure and, as recent research has shown, cognitive loads associated with menu navigation can be more problematic than those associated with selecting an option from a list. |
| - | Starting in 1997, a number of research studies have indicated that the practice of restricting the number of options in auditory menus is not necessarily best practice and, in fact, may be more of a misguideline (Commarford, Lewis, Al-Awar Smither & Gentzler, 2008; Huguenard, Lurch, Junker, Patz, & Kass, 1997; Hura, 2010; Suhm, Freeman, and Getty, 2001; Virzi & Huitema, 1997, Wolters, Georgila, Moore, Logie, MacPherson, & Watson, 2009). | + | Starting in 1997, a number of research studies have indicated that the practice of restricting the number of options in auditory menus is not necessarily best practice and, in fact, may be more of a misguideline ([[references#commarford2008|Commarford, Lewis, Al-Awar Smither & Gentzler, 2008]]; [[references#huguenard|Huguenard, Lurch, Junker, Patz, & Kass, 1997]]; [[references#hura2010|Hura, 2010]]; [[references#suhm2001|Suhm, Freeman, and Getty, 2001]]; [[references#virzi|Virzi & Huitema, 1997]], [[references#wolters|Wolters, Georgila, Moore, Logie, MacPherson, & Watson, 2009]]). |
| - | Commarford et al. (2008) provided a detailed cognitive analysis of selection from an auditory menu that showed that, at least theoretically, auditory menus could be of almost infinite length (also see Hura, 2010 -- “My Big Fat Main Menu”). Basically, callers do not memorize the options in an auditory menu -- instead, they come into the task with a goal in mind (one mental chunk) and listen to the options, comparing them with the goal (one more mental chunk) and until they hear an option that is a strong enough match to the goal that they decide to select it, they hold in memory the best option so far (one more mental chunk) -- for a total of three chunks of memory at any given time, regardless of the length of the menu. | + | [[references#commarford2008|Commarford et al.]] (2008) provided a detailed cognitive analysis of selection from an auditory menu that showed that, at least theoretically, auditory menus could be of almost infinite length (also see [[references#hura2010|Hura, 2010]] -- “My Big Fat Main Menu”). Basically, callers do not memorize the options in an auditory menu -- instead, they come into the task with a goal in mind (one mental chunk) and listen to the options, comparing them with the goal (one more mental chunk) and until they hear an option that is a strong enough match to the goal that they decide to select it, they hold in memory the best option so far (one more mental chunk) -- for a total of three chunks of memory at any given time, regardless of the length of the menu. |
| - | In an experiment testing their model, Commarford et al. (2008) had participants with high and low working memory capacity (WMC) complete tasks using deep and broad auditory menu structures. They found that it took participants in the deep condition significantly longer to complete the tasks, and those participants also had significantly lower task completion rates and poorer satisfaction ratings. Participants with higher WMC completed significantly more tasks. The most important finding was an interaction between menu structure and WMC for task completion time. Specifically, participants with high- and low-WMC completed tasks at about the same rate when using the broad version (both groups relatively and about equally quick), but high-WMC participants were significantly faster than low-WMC participants when using the deep version (both groups relatively slow, but the low-WMC group much slower than the high-WMC group, by about 30 seconds on average). The data indicated that the design intended to help people with low-WMC -- the deep menu design with fewer options per menu but more structure -- actually made the tasks more difficult. | + | In an experiment testing their model, [[references#commarford2008|Commarford et al.]] (2008) had participants with high and low working memory capacity (WMC) complete tasks using deep and broad auditory menu structures. They found that it took participants in the deep condition significantly longer to complete the tasks, and those participants also had significantly lower task completion rates and poorer satisfaction ratings. Participants with higher WMC completed significantly more tasks. The most important finding was an interaction between menu structure and WMC for task completion time. Specifically, participants with high- and low-WMC completed tasks at about the same rate when using the broad version (both groups relatively and about equally quick), but high-WMC participants were significantly faster than low-WMC participants when using the deep version (both groups relatively slow, but the low-WMC group much slower than the high-WMC group, by about 30 seconds on average). The data indicated that the design intended to help people with low-WMC -- the deep menu design with fewer options per menu but more structure -- actually made the tasks more difficult. |
| - | "Note that it is the designer's role to determine how best to allow users access to a specified set of options. Although it is an important factor, menu length is not the only factor. It is also important for designers to provide unambiguous menu labels and to place menu items into logical groups to meet user expectations and avoid confusion. If the items fall nicely into groups of four or fewer, it is reasonable to organize them in this manner. The IVR design question under consideration (whether long menus have user performance advantages compared with sets of shorter menus) becomes critical when more than a few items are relevant (potentially useful) at a particular point in the user interface flow." (Commarford et al., 2008, p. 78) | + | "Note that it is the designer's role to determine how best to allow users access to a specified set of options. Although it is an important factor, menu length is not the only factor. It is also important for designers to provide unambiguous menu labels and to place menu items into logical groups to meet user expectations and avoid confusion. If the items fall nicely into groups of four or fewer, it is reasonable to organize them in this manner. The IVR design question under consideration (whether long menus have user performance advantages compared with sets of shorter menus) becomes critical when more than a few items are relevant (potentially useful) at a particular point in the user interface flow." ([[references#commarford2008|Commarford et al., 2008]], p. 78) |
| ==== References ==== | ==== References ==== | ||
| Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Is working memory still working? American Psychologist, 56, 851-864. | Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Is working memory still working? American Psychologist, 56, 851-864. | ||