Increasingly users must navigate through a hierarchy of menus in order to access the various functions available on a computer. As the number of functions proliferates and the menu hierarchies grow more complex, the time it takes users to access any given function has become unacceptably slow. Specifically, given a set of functions, recent studies have shown how to identify the structure of the complete, homogeneous hierarchy that minimizes the average time to access these functions. In this article a general method for finding the optimal hierarchy is developed. The method does not confine the search for an optimal hierarchy to the set of complete, homogeneous hierarchies; nor, given suitable input, does the method select as optimal a hierarchy that cannot be easily navigated. It is important to identify the optimal hierarchy because it can reduce the average access time considerably, in some cases (at least in theory) by almost 100%.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott, K. H. (August 1988). Robust operative diagnosis as problem solving in a hypothesis space. In Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 369–374). St. Paul, MN: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
2.
Atkinson, K. (1985). Elementary numerical analysis. New York: Wiley.
3.
Card, S. K. (1982). User perceptual mechanisms in the search of computer command menus. In Proceedings of HI 1982, Human Factors in Computer Systems (pp. 190–196). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
4.
Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., and Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
Chin, J. P. (1989). A dynamic user-adaptable menu system: Linking it all together. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting (pp. 413–417). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
6.
Fisher, D. L., and Yungkurth, E. J. (1989). A recursive formulation of the optimal menu hierarchy problem (Tech. Report IEOR 89–1). Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research.
7.
Hamilton, T., Simmons, D., and Carlson, R. (October 1986). HELIX: an engine monitoring system. In Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Mechanical Failures Prevention Group. Patuxant River, MD: Naval Air Test Center.
8.
Hirtle, S. C. (1982). Lattice-based similarity measures between ordered trees. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 25, 206–225.
9.
Hirtle, S. C. (1984). GRAFT: A LISP program for comparing long-term memory structures revealed through ordered trees. Behavioral Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 16, 405.
10.
Hirtle, S. C. (1987). On the classification of recall strategies using lattice-theoretic measures. Journal of Classification, 4, 227–242.
11.
Hirtle, S. C., and Jonides, J. (1985). Evidence of hierarchies in cognitive maps. Memory & Cognition, 13, 208–217.
12.
Kiger, J. I. (1984). The depth-breadth trade-off in the design of menu-driven user interfaces. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 20, 201–213.
13.
Lee, E., and MacGregor, J. (1985). Minimizing user search time in menu retrieval systems. Human Factors, 27, 157–162.
14.
MacGregor, J., Lee, E., and Lam, N. (1986). Optimizing the structure of database menu indexes: A decision model of menu search. Human Factors, 28, 387–399.
15.
Madden, J. (1979). Videotex in Canada. Ottawa: Government of Canada, Department of Communications.
16.
McDonald, J. E., Stone, J. D., and Liebelt, L. S. (1983). Searching for items in menus: The effects of organization and type of target. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting (pp. 834–837). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
17.
McKeithen, K. B., Reitman, J. S., Rueter, H. R., and Hirtle, S. C. (1981). Knowledge organization and skill differences in computer programmers. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 307–325.
18.
McNamara, T. P., Hardy, J. K., and Hirtle, S. C. (1989). Subjective hierarchies in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 211–227.
19.
Miller, D. P. (1981). The depth/breadth trade-off in hierarchical computer menus. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting (pp. 296–300). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
20.
Naveh-Benjamin, M., McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Y., and Tucker, D. G. (1986). Inferring students' cognitive structures and their development using the “ordered tree technique.”Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 130–140.
21.
Paap, K. R., and Roske-Hofstrand, R. J. (1986). The optimal number of menu options per panel. Human Factors, 28, 377–385.
22.
Reitman, J. S., and Rueter, H. R. (1980). Organization revealed by recall orders and confirmed by pauses. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 554–581.
23.
Senk, R., and Fisher, D. L. (1990). Determining the optimal menu hierarchy (Tech. Report IEOR 90–1). Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research.
24.
Snowberry, K., Parkinson, S. R., and Sisson, N. (1983). Computer display menus. Ergonomics, 26, 699–712.
25.
Tullis, T. S. (1983). The formatting of alphanumeric displays: A review and analysis. Human Factors, 25, 657–682.
26.
Tydeman, J., Lipinski, H., Adler, R., Nyhan, M., and Swimpfer, L. (1982). Teletext and videotex in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill.
