Andrew Sears
Ben Shneiderman
Abstract
When some items in a menu are selected more frequently than others, as is often the case, designers or individual users may be able to speed performance and improve preference ratings by placing several high-frequency items at the top of the menu. Design guidelines for split menus were developed and applied. Split menus were implemented and tested in two in situ usability studies and a controlled experiment. In the usability studies performance times were reduced by 17 to 58% depending on the site and menus. In the controlled experiment split menus were significantly faster than alphabetic menus and yielded significantly higher subjective preferences. A possible resolution to the continuing debate among cognitive theorists about predicting menu selection times is offered. We conjecture and offer evidence that, at least when selecting items from pull-down menus, a logarithmic model applies to familiar (high-frequency) items, and a linear model to unfamiliar (low-frequency) items.
- APPLE COMPUTER INC. 1987. Human Interface Guidelines: The Apple Desktop Interface. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.]] Google Scholar
- BROWN, C.M. 1988. Human-Computer Interface Design Guidelines. Ablex, Norwood, N.J.]] Google Scholar
- CARD, S.K. 1982. User perceptual mechanisms in the search of computer command menus. In Human Factors in Computer Systems Proceedings. ACM, New York, 190-196.]] Google Scholar
- CALLAHAN, J., HOPKINS, D., WEISER, M., AND SHNEmERMAN, B. 1988. An empirical comparison of pie versus linear menus. In Proceedings of Human Factors ~n Computing Systems '88. ACM, New York, 95-10.]] Google Scholar
- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. 1991. Military Standard--Human engineering design criteria for military systems, equipment and facilities. MIL-STD-1472D, Dept. of Defense, Washington, D.C.]]Google Scholar
- FISHER, D., YUNGKURTH, E., AND MOSS, S. 1990. Optimal menu hierarchy design: Syntax and semantics. Hum. Fact. 32, 6, 665-683.]] Google Scholar
- GREENBERG, S. AND WITTEN, I. H. 1985. Adaptive personalized interfaces: A question of viability. Behav. Inf. Tech. 4, 1, 31-45.]]Google Scholar
- GREENBERG, S. 1988. Tool use, reuse, and organization in command-driven interfaces. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Computer Science, The Univ. of Calgary, Alberta, Calgary, 28-33.]]Google Scholar
- LANDAUER, T. K. AND NACHBAR, D.W. 1985. Selection from alphabetic and numeric menu trees using a touch screen: Breadth, depth, and width. In Proceedings of Human Factors ~n Computing Systems. ACM, New York, 73 78.]] Google Scholar
- LEE, E. AND MACGREGOR, J. 1985. Minimizing user search time in menu retrieval systems. Hum. Fact. 27, 2, 157-162.]]Google Scholar
- MITCHELL, J. AND SHNEIDERMAN, B. 1989. Dynamic versus static menus: An exploratory comparison. SIGCHI Bull. 20, 4, 33-37.]] Google Scholar
- NORMAN, K. 1991. The Psychology of Menu Selection. Ablex, Norwood, N.J.]] Google Scholar
- OPEN SOFTWARE FOUNDATION. 1990. OSF/Motif Style Guide. Prentme-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.]] Google Scholar
- PAAP, K. R. AND ROSKE-HOFSTRAND, R_ J. 1955. Design of menug_ In Handbook of Human- Computer Interaction. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 205-235.]]Google Scholar
- PAAP, K. R. AND ROSKE-HOFSTRAND, R.J. 1986. The optimal number of menu options per panel. Hum. Fact. 28, 4, 377-385.]] Google Scholar
- RUBINSTEIN, R. AND HERSH, H. 1986. The Human Factor: Designing Computer Systems for People. Digital Press, Burlington, Mass.]] Google Scholar
- SEARS, A. 1993a. Layout appropriateness: Guiding user interface design with simple task descriptions. Ph.D. dissertation, Computer Science Dept., The Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md.]] Google Scholar
- SEARS, A. 1993b. Layout appropriateness: A metric for evaluating user inferface widget layout. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 19, 7, 707-719.]] Google Scholar
- SHNEXDI~RMAN, B. 1992. Designing the User Interface. 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.]] Google Scholar
- SMITH, S. L. AND Mosmg, J.N. 1986. Guidelines for designing user interface software. Rep. 7 MTR-10090, Mitre Corporation, Bedford, Mass.]]Google Scholar
- SOMBERG, B.L. 1987. A comparison of rule-based and positionally constant arrangements of computer menu items. In Proceedings of CHI and GI '87. ACM, New York, 255-260.]] Google Scholar
- SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. 1990. OPEN LOOK Graphical User Interface Application Style Guidelines. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.]] Google Scholar
- THORNDIKE, E. L. ANn LOROE, I. 1944. The Teachers' Word Book of 30,000 Words. Columbia University Press, New York.]]Google Scholar
- WALKER, N. AND SMELCER, J, 1990. A comparison of selection times from walking and pull-down menus. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems '90. ACM, New York, 221-225.]] Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Split menus: effectively using selection frequency to organize menus
Recommendations
Adaptively shortened pull down menus: location knowledge and selection efficiency
Adaptively shortened pull down menus, as introduced by Microsoft with the 'personalized menus' in Office 2000™ and assumed to speed up menu selection, are examined. Displacement of items in this adaptively changing menu is argued to conflict with the ...
Design issues related to pie menus for 5-way joysticks
Mobility '07: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on mobile technology, applications, and systems and the 1st international symposium on Computer human interaction in mobile technologyAlthough linear textual menus are a widely adopted solution in the mobile phone user interfaces, alternatives that would take smaller amount of screen real estate exist, e.g. toolbars and pie menus. Pie menus also provide access to functions with fewer ...
The effect of size of personalised menus on user satisfaction
MMACTEE'09: Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS international conference on Mathematical methods and computational techniques in electrical engineeringIn this paper we investigate empirically the effects of menu size on the personalisation approaches. Therefore, we investigate empirically the use of different size of five different interactive menu conditions: adaptable, adaptive split, adaptive/...
Reviews
Philip Jesse Herrera
Software designers and developers who include pull-down menus in their products should review this brief but thorough paper. The authors describe what split menus are, and when and how split menus enhance a program's user interface. The choices presented in a menu can be organized in different ways, and this paper explores those alternatives. The authors explain that the purpose of paying attention to menu organization is to speed learning and performance. Split menus are created by splitting a menu into two sections. Designers or individual users place frequently selected items in the top section and infrequently selected items in the bottom section. The authors describe various techniques and rationales used in selecting menu organization strategies and related benefits. The authors support their assessment of the value of split menus by reporting the detailed results of in situ studies as well as a controlled experiment they conducted. They also report the tests used to validate the results of their study. The authors review models that predict the benefits of various menu organizations and also propose and describe, in detail, their own cognitive model for predicting the benefits of split menus. They cite other studies and papers that describe menu organization strategies and their effects. A list of additional reference material is included to augment and substantiate the ideas presented. This paper is well written; the topic was researched well and is concisely explained. If the software you are developing includes pull-down menus, read this paper.
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments