Exhibit 1014 – Part 4
`
`Exhibit 1014 — Part 4
`
`

`
`112
`
`Chapter 3
`
`Menu Selection and Form Fillin
`
`number of levels decreased. Over the range studied, the authors suggest that
`a simple function of the number of items on the screen will predict the time,
`T, for a selection:
`
`T=l<+c*logb
`
`where k and c are empirically determined constants for scanning the screen
`to make a choice, and b is the breadth at each level. Then, the total time to
`traverse the menu tree depends on only the depth, D, which is
`
`D : 1og,,N
`
`where N is the total number of items in the tree. With N = 4096 target items
`and a branching factor of b = 16, the depth, D =3, and the total time is
`3*(k + c"log16).
`Norman and Chin (1988) fixed the number of levels at four, with 256
`target items, and varied the shape of the tree structure. They recommend
`greater breadth at the root and at the leaves, and added a further encourage-
`ment to minimize the total number of menu frames needed so as to increase
`
`familiarity. In an interesting variation, Wallace et al. (1987) confirmed that
`broader, shallower trees (4 X 3 versus 2 X 6) produced superior performance,
`and showed that, when users were stressed, they made 96 percent more
`errors and took 16 percent longer. The stressor was simply an instruction to
`work quickly ("It is imperative that you finish the task just as quickly as
`possible”); the control group received gentler verbal instruction to avoid
`rushing (”Take your time; there is no rush”).
`Even though the semantic structure of the items cannot be ignored, these
`studies suggest that the fewer the levels, the greater the ease of decision
`making. Of course, display rates, response time, and screen clutter must be
`considered, in addition to the semantic organization.
`
`Semantic grouping in tree structures Rules for semantic validity are hard
`to state, and there is always the danger that some users may not grasp the
`designer's organizational framework. Young and Hull (1982) examined
`"cognitive mismatches” in the British Prestel Viewdata system (Martin,
`1982). The problems that they identified included overlapping categories,
`extraneous items, conflicting classifications in the same menu, unfamiliar
`jargon, and generic terms. Based on this set of problems, the rules for
`forming menu trees might be these:
`
`- Create groups of logically similar items: For example, a comprehensible
`menu would list countries at level 1, states or provinces at level 2, and
`cities at level 3.
`
`

`
`3.2 Semantic Organization
`
`113
`
`- Form groups that cover all possibilities: For example, a menu with age
`ranges 0-9, 10-19, 20-29, and greater than 30 makes it easy for the user
`to select an item.
`
`- Make sure that items are nonoverlapping: Lower-level items should be
`naturally associated with a single higher-level item. Young and Hull
`offered an example of a poorly designed screen with Places in
`Britain and Regions of England as overlapping items on the
`same menu.
`
`0 Use familiar terminology, but ensure that items are distinct from one another:
`Choosing the right terminology is a difficult task; feedback from sample
`users will be helpful during design and testing.
`
`Menu maps As the depth of a menu tree grows, users find it increasingly
`difficult to maintain a sense of position in the tree, and their sense of
`disorientation, or of “getting lost,” grows. To overcome this sense of
`disorientation, some menu systems come with a printed index of terms that
`is easier to scan than is a series of screen displays. The French Minitel system
`offers a detailed cross-referenced index that, in 1991, was 62 pages long and
`contained more than ten thousand entries. The CompuServe Information
`Service's 1991 index contained almost 3000 subjects; it included a diagram,
`or map, of the first three levels of the tree structure, which contained 43
`menus. The PRODIGY information system uses a cascade approach to show
`its large menu tree (Figure 3.10a and b).
`The relative merits of a map and an index were studied in a small menu
`structure with 18 animals as target items (Billingsley, 1982). In this case,
`users who had the chance to study an index did somewhat better than a
`control group that had no special navigation aids. The group with an
`overall map did substantially better than did both the index and control
`groups.
`
`Control
`
`Index
`
`Number of subjects
`Mean time per search
`Mean choices per search
`
`10.0
`35.3
`12.3
`
`8.0
`30.7
`8.4
`
`Map
`
`8.0
`19.2
`47
`
`Menu learning for a three-level, three-item (3x3) menu was studied
`with four forms of training (Parton et al., 1985). The four forms were as
`follows:
`
`1. Online exploration: Subjects could explore the menus online.
`2. Command sequences: Subjects studied, on paper the 27 paths through the
`three levels; e.g., Plans Division, Concepts, Systems Analyst.
`
`

`
`114
`
`Chapter 3
`
`Menu Selection and Form Fillin
`
`mailbox
`highlights
`united way
`help hub
`about PRODIGY
`PRODIGY star
`new!
`.
`schedme
`encydopcdla
`
`news desk
`headlines
`quick news
`area news
`today
`lotteries
`science news
`jack germond
`roben novak
`newsword
`harpers ind
`nation
`Capital C
`
`News&Features
`
`Shoppmg
`Money
`Travel
`Computers
`
`Information
`Newsroom
`Business
`Sports
`“c”::;::;,
`Extra Extra
`
`Information
`Entertainment
`Funhouse
`Under 21
`Lifestyles
`Health
`Travelog
`Computing
`Food
`
`Your home
`Sports, etc.
`Dept Stores
`Clothing
`Boutiques
`Pastimes
`Groceries
`Specialities
`Photography
`Audio/Video
`Computers
`Software
`Auto
`Gourmet Foods
`
`Figure 3.10(a)
`
`(Figure 3.103 and b: Courtesy of Prodigy
`The PRODIGY information system.
`Services Company, White Plains, NY.) (a) Partial menu tree.
`
`3. Frames: Subjects studied online the 13 menu frames, like this one:
`Plans Division
`Concepts
`Designs
`Proposals
`
`4. Menu map: Subjects studied online a tree-structured layout of the 13
`frames.
`
`The 65 undergraduate subjects had a 12-minute training period followed
`by a 10-minute work period. The results indicate a strong advantage for
`those who had the menu map (Table 3.1).
`
`
`
`

`
`3.2 Semantic Organization
`
`115
`
`>
`V
`9""9'xg mu hank in you LIEXTJ
`uéifIn
`
`T2; cousunen REPORTS
`Tm nu Jspanue cor;
`y~ -E:-$1 .111’ aefmaa
`....m«m<.Ju .‘
`ul high standards a!
`excellent: and paint
`the my toward on On
`
`»u.}:*;1:~. }u1":cI'I'nfi:-Minn q.lu'?.T
`Mi: gnu loom a thing or me than?
`1
`uhgggflnl
`.
`nun.‘ Ng{.Jr1i
`9..
`.\vr.nr-,
`:r..,v-1- in)
`
`‘IELJS
`w€F~n,rHE
`Finn assets ltd not us were noun
`Inns, 5 in Iraq iwalod Kuubil
`in a
`flwrsdca B9 untuil-us can 4:! Pr-uldlnl
`mrprisc. ‘ha dumb «nun. on xv-mt
`win acid an Hull mun! manna B?
`mun
`no gas.
`zit crux‘?!
`tutu-«non
`‘U-uuil huh loclsd H. Tan
`BI-Qoeiioal
`to in twain
`has at m cumYum Much: Ina (I601
`n gm. make A flelI:ruUS.
`slanted ar~ur\FnI
`and:
`
`Figure 3.10(b)
`
`Four displays.
`
`Table 3.1
`
`Scores on four dependent variables showed improved performance for subjects
`who had studied a graphical menu map for a three—level menu. (Source: Parton et
`al., 1985.)
`
`Variable
`Targets found
`Average number of
`menus visited
`Recall of tree
`(max : 27)
`Satisfaction
`
`(best = 5)
`
`Online
`
`Exploration
`8.2
`
`Command
`
`Sequences
`4.7
`
`10.6
`
`10.1
`
`3.6
`
`20.4
`
`8.4
`
`3.1
`
`Frames
`
`Menu
`
`Map
`6.5
`
`19.6
`
`9.8
`
`2.8
`
`8.5 n.s.
`
`9.4 p<.10
`
`16.7 p<.O5
`
`4.8 p<.01
`
`

`
`116
`
`Chapter 3
`
`Menu Selection and Form Fillin
`
`As the tree structure grows, users have greater difficulty in maintaining
`an overall understanding of the semantic organization. Viewing the struc-
`ture one menu at a time is like seeing the world through a cardboard tube; it
`is hard to grasp the overall pattern and to see relationships among catego-
`ries. Offering a spatial map can help overcome users to this difficulty.
`
`Summary There is no perfect menu structure that matches every person's
`knowledge of the application domain. Designers must use good judgment
`for the initial implementation, but then must be receptive to suggested
`improvements and empirical data. Users will gradually gain familiarity,
`even with extremely complex tree structures, and will be increasingly
`successful in locating required items.
`
`3.2.4 Acyclic and cyclic menu networks
`
`Although tree structures are appealing, sometimes network structures are
`more appropriate. For example, it might make sense to provide access to
`banking information from both the financial and consumer parts of a tree
`structure. A second motivation for using networks is that it may be desirable
`to permit paths between disparate sections of a tree, rather than requiring
`users to begin a new search from the main menu. These and other conditions
`lead to network structures in the form of acyclic, or even cyclic, graphs. As
`users move from trees, to acyclic networks, to cyclic networks, the potential
`for getting lost increases.
`With a tree structure, the user can form a mental model of the structure
`and of the relationships among the menus. Developing this mental model
`may be more difficult with a network. With a tree structure, there is a single
`parent menu, so backward traversals toward the main menu are straightfor-
`ward. In networks, a stack of visited menus must be kept to allow backward
`traversals. In a thorough study of 17 subjects using menu networks of 50
`frames, Mantei (1982) concluded that ”the structure of the user interface .
`.
`.
`causes disorientation if this structure is not obvious to the user.”
`
`If networks are used, it may be helpful to preserve a notion of ”level,” or
`distance from the main menu. Users may feel more comfortable if they have
`a sense of how far they are from the main menu.
`
`3.3
`
`Item Presentation Sequence
`
`Once the items in a menu have been chosen, the designer is still con-
`fronted with the choice of presentation sequence. If the items have a
`natural sequence-such as days of the week, chapters in a book, or sizes
`of eggs——then the decision is trivial. Typical bases for sequencing items
`
`

`
`3.3
`
`Item Presentation Sequence
`
`117
`
`include these:
`
`- Time: Chronological ordering
`- Numeric ordering: Ascending or descending ordering
`- Physical properties: Increasing or decreasing length, area, volume, tem-
`perature, weight, velocity, etc.
`
`Many cases have no natural ordering, and the designer must choose from
`such possibilities as:
`
`- Alphabetic sequence of terms
`- Grouping of related items (with blank lines or other demarcation between
`groups)
`- Most frequently used items first
`0 Most important items first: Importance may be difficult to decide and
`may vary among users
`
`Card (1982) experimented with a single 18-item vertical permanent menu
`of text-editing commands such as INSERT, ITALIC, and CENTER. He
`presented subjects with a command, and they had to locate the command in
`the list, move a mouse-controlled cursor, and select the command by
`pressing a button on the mouse. The menu items were sequenced one of
`three ways: alphabetically, in functional groups, and randomly. Each of four
`subjects made 86 trials with each sequencing strategy. The mean times were
`as follows:
`
`Strategy
`
`Time per trial
`
`alphabetic
`functional
`
`random
`
`0.81 seconds
`1.28 seconds
`
`3.23 seconds
`
`Since subjects were given the target item, they did best when merely
`scanning to match the menu items in an alphabetic sequence. The perfor-
`mance with the functional groupings was remarkably good, indicating that
`subjects began to remember the groupings and could go directly to a group.
`In menu applications where the users must make a decision about the most
`suitable menu item, the functional arrangement might be more appealing.
`Users’ memory for the functionally grouped items would be likely to
`surpass their memory for the alphabetic or random sequences. The poor
`performance that Card observed with the random sequence confirms the
`importance of considering alternative item presentation sequences.
`With a 64-item menu, the time for locating a target word was found to
`increase from just over 2 seconds for an alphabetic menu to more than 6
`seconds for a random menu (McDonald et al., 1983). When the target word
`
`

`
`118
`
`Chapter 3 Menu Selection and Form Fillin
`
`was replaced with a single-line definition, the 109 subjects could no longer
`scan for a simple match and had to consider each menu item carefully. The
`advantage of alphabetic ordering nearly vanished. User reaction time went
`up to about 7 seconds for the alphabetic and about 8 seconds for the random
`organization. Somberg and Picardi (1983) studied user reaction times in
`finding to which category a target word belonged in a five-item menu. Their
`three experiments revealed a significant and nearly linear relationship
`between the user's reaction time and the serial position of the correct
`category in the menu. Furthermore, there was a significant increase in
`reaction time if the target word was unfamiliar, rather than familiar.
`If frequency of use is a potential guide to sequencing menu items, then it
`might make sense to vary the sequence adaptively to reflect the current
`pattern of use. Unfortunately, adaptations can be disruptive, increasing
`confusion and undermining the users’s learning of menu structures. In
`addition, users might become anxious about other changes occurring at any
`moment. Evidence against such changes was found in a study in which a
`pull—down list of food items was resequenced to ensure that the most
`frequently selected items migrated toward the top (Mitchell and
`Shneiderman, 1988). Users were clearly unsettled by the changing menus,
`and their performance was better with static menus. Evidence in favor of
`adaptation was found in a study of a telephone book menu tree that had
`been restructured to make frequently used telephone numbers more easily
`accessible (Greenberg, 1985). However, this study did not deal with the issue
`of potentially disorientating changes to the menu during usage. To avoid
`disruption and unpredictable behavior, it is probably a wise policy to allow
`users to specify when they want the menu restructured.
`
`3.4 Response Time and Display Rate
`
`A critical variable that may determine the attractiveness of menu selection is
`the speed at which users can move through the menus. The two components
`of speed are system response time, the time it takes for the system to begin dis-
`playing information in response to a user selection, and display rate, the rate in
`characters per second at which the menus are displayed (see Chapter 7).
`Deep menu trees or complex traversals become annoying to the user if
`system response time is slow, resulting in long and multiple delays. With
`slow display rates, lengthy menus become annoying because of the volume
`of text that must be displayed. In positive terms, if the response time is long,
`then designers should create menus with more items on each menu to
`reduce the number of menus necessary. If the display rate is slow, then
`designers should create menus with fewer items to reduce the display time.
`
`

`
`3.5 Moving Through Menus Quickly
`
`119
`
`If the response time is long and the display rate is low, menu selection is
`unappealing, and command-language strategies, in spite of the greater
`memory demands on the users, become more attractive.
`With short response times and rapid display rates, menu selection
`becomes a lively medium that can be attractive even for frequent and
`knowledgeable users.
`In five studies with 165 adult users of a videotext system, response-time
`delay pairs (0 versus 10 seconds, 10 versus 15 seconds, and 3 versus 7
`seconds) did not yield a statistically significant difference in the preference
`or performance measures tested (Murray and Abrahamson, 1983). The
`authors’ interpretation was that ”inexperienced videotext users are rela-
`tively immune to a wide range of constant values of system delay.” Other
`studies have also found that novice users are often pleased with slower
`response times. However, the large variations in individual performance
`may have obscured the usual preference for faster response times. Murray
`and Abrahamson found a significant effect that indicated that large varia-
`tions in response time led to slower user—response rates.
`
`3.5 Moving Through Menus Quickly
`
`Even with short response times and high display rates, frequent menu users
`may become annoyed if they must make several menu selections to complete
`a task. There may be some advantage to reducing the number of menus by
`increasing the number of items per menu, where possible, but this strategy
`may not be sufficient. As response times lengthen and display rates de-
`crease, the need for shortcuts through the menus increases.
`Instead of creating a command language to accomplish the task with
`positional or keyword parameters, the menu approach can be refined to
`accommodate expert and frequent users. Three approaches have been used:
`allow typeahead for known menu choices, assign names to menus to allow
`direct access, and create menu macros that allows users to assign names to
`frequently used menu sequences.
`
`3.5.1 Menus with typeahead—the BLT approach
`
`A natural way to permit frequent menu users to speed through the menus is
`to allow typeahead. The user does not have to wait to see the menus before
`choosing the items, but can type a string of letters or numbers when
`presented with the main menu. For example, in the document-printing
`package in Section 3.2, the user could type T2N to get printing at the
`terminal, double spacing, and no page numbering. The IBM Interactive
`
`

`
`120
`
`Chapter 3 Menu Selection and Form Fillin
`
`System Productivity Facility (ISPF) has numbered choices and allows
`typeahead with a decimal point between choices (for example, 1 . 2 . 1).
`Typeahead becomes important when the menus are familiar and response
`time or display rates are slow, as in many voice-mail systems. Most
`telephone-inquiry and electronic-mail systems allow the experienced user to
`enter a string of keypresses at any point in the session.
`If the menu items are identified with single letters, then the concatenation
`of menu selections in the typeahead scheme generates a command name that
`acquires mnemonic value. To users of a photo-library search system that
`offered menus with typeahead, a color slide portrait quickly became known
`as a CSP, and a black-and—white print of a landscape became known as a
`BPL. These mnemonics come to be remembered and chunked as a single
`concept. This strategy quickly became known as the BLT approach; after the
`abbreviation for a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich.
`The attraction of the BLT approach is that users can gracefully move from
`being novice menu users to being knowledgeable command users. There are
`no new commands to learn, and as soon as users become familiar with one
`branch of the tree, they can apply that knowledge to speed up their work.
`Learning can be incremental; users can apply one—, two-, or three—letter
`typeahead, and then explore the less familiar menus. If users forget part of
`the tree, they simply revert to menu usage.
`The BLT approach requires a more elaborate parser for the user input, and
`handling nonexistent menu choices is a bit more problematic. It is also
`necessary to ensure distinct first letters for items within each menu, but not
`across menus. Still, the typeahead or BLT approach is attractive because it is
`powerful, is simple, and allows graceful evolution from novice to expert.
`
`3.5.2 Menu names for direct access
`
`A second approach to support frequent users is to use numbered menu
`items and to assign names to each menu frame. Users can follow the menus
`or, if they know the name of their destination, they can type it in and go there
`directly. The CompuServe Information Service has a three-letter identifier
`for major topics, followed by a dash and a page number. Rather than
`working their way through three levels of menus at 30 characters per second,
`users know that they can go directly to TWP—1, the start of the subtree
`containing today's edition of The Washington Post. Similarly, PRODIGY users
`can JUMP to the WEATHER by typing those words.
`This strategy is useful if there is only a small number of destinations that
`each user needs to remember. If users need to access many different portions
`of the menu tree, they will have difficulty keeping track of the destination
`names. A list of the current destination names is necessary to ensure that
`designers create unique names for new entries.
`
`

`
`3.6 Menu Screen Design
`
`121
`
`An empirical comparison of the learnability of the typeahead and direct-
`access strategies demonstrated an advantage for the latter (Laverson et al.,
`1987). Thirty-two undergraduates had to learn either path names
`(typeahead) or destination names (direct access) for a four-level menu tree,
`The direct-access names proved to be significantly faster to learn and were
`preferred. Different tree structures or menu contents may influence the
`outcome of similar studies.
`
`3.5.3 Menu macros
`
`A third approach to serving frequent menu users is to allow regularly used
`paths to be recorded by users as menu macros. In other words, users can
`define their own commands. A user can invoke the macro facility, traverse
`the menu structure, and then assign a name. When the name is invoked, the
`traversal
`is executed automatically. This mechanism allows individual
`tailoring of the system and can provide a simplified access mechanism for
`users with limited needs.
`
`j______
`
`3.6 Menu Screen Design
`
`Little experimental research has been done on menu-system screen design.
`This section contains many subjective judgments, which are in need of
`empirical validation (Table 3.2).
`
`Table 3.2
`
`Menu selection guidelines that have been distilled from practice, but that still
`require validation and clarification.
`
`Menu Selection Guidelines
`
`0 Use task semantics to organize menus (single, linear sequence, tree structure,
`acyclic and cyclic networks)
`- Prefer broad and shallow to narrow and deep
`0 Show position by graphics, numbers, or titles
`0 Use item names as titles for trees
`0 Use meaningful groupings of items
`* Use meaningful sequencing of items
`0 Make items brief, begin with keyword
`0 Use consistent grammar, layout, terminology
`0 Allow typeahead, jumpahead, or other shortcuts
`0 Allow jumps to previous and main menus
`0 Consider online help, novel selection mechanisms, response time, display rate,
`and screen size
`
`

`
`122
`
`Chapter 3
`
`Menu Selection and Form Fillin
`
`3.6.1 Titles
`
`Choosing the title for a book is a delicate matter for an author, editor, or
`publisher. A more descriptive or memorable title can make a big difference
`in reader responses. Similarly, choosing titles for menus is a complex matter
`that deserves serious thought.
`For single menus, a simple descriptive title that identifies the situation is
`all that is necessary. With a linear sequence of menus, the titles should
`accurately represent the stages in the linear sequence. For the menus in the
`document-printing package (Section 3.2), the titles might be Printing
`location, Spacing control, and Page numbering placement.
`Consistent grammatical style can reduce confusion. If the third menu were
`titled How do you want page numbering to be done? or Select
`page numbering placement options, many users would be un-
`settled. Excess verbiage becomes a distraction. Brief noun phrases are often
`sufficient.
`
`For tree—structured menus, choosing titles is more difficult. Such titles as
`Main menu or topic descriptions as Bank transactions for the root of
`the tree clearly indicate that the user is at the beginning of a session. One
`potentially helpful rule is to use the exact words in the high-level menu
`items as the titles for the next lower—level menu. It is reassuring to users to
`see an item such as Business and financial services and, after it
`has been selected, a screen that
`is titled Business and financial
`services. It might be unsettling to get a screen titled Managing your
`money, even though the intent is similar. Imagine looking in the table of
`contents of a book and seeing a chapter title such as ”The American
`Revolution,” but, when you turn to the indicated page, finding ”Our early
`history”—you might worry about whether you had made a mistake, and
`your confidence might be undermined.
`Using menu items as titles may encourage the menu author to choose
`items more carefully so that they are descriptive in two contexts.
`A further concern is consistency in placement of titles and other features
`in a menu screen. Teitelbaum and Granda (1983) demonstrated that user
`think time nearly doubled when the position of information, such as titles or
`prompts, was varied on menu screens.
`In networks of menus, titles become even more important as a guidepost
`because the potential for confusion is greater. If menu items are made to
`match the title, then several menus in a network may have the same items.
`It is satisfying to find the item Electronic mail in several menus, but
`unsettling to find menus with variant terms such as Electronic mail,
`Sending a note to another user, and Communicating with your
`colleagues.
`
`

`
`3.6 Menu Screen Design
`
`123
`
`3.6.2
`
`Phrasing of menu items
`
`Iust because a system has menu choices written with English words,
`phrases, or sentences, it is not guaranteed to be comprehensible. Individual
`words may not be familiar to some users, and often two menu items may
`appear to satisfy the user's needs, whereas only one does. This enduring
`problem has no perfect solution. Designers can gather feedback from
`colleagues, users, pilot studies, acceptance tests, and user—performance
`monitoring. The following guidelines may seem obvious, but we state them
`because they are so often violated:
`
`- Use familiar and consistent terminology: Carefully select terminology that
`is familiar to the designated user community, and keep a list of these
`terms to facilitate consistent use.
`
`Ensure that items are distinct from one another: Each item should be
`distinguished clearly from other items. For example, Slow tours of
`the countryside, Journeys with visits to parks, and
`Leisurely voyages are less distinctive than Bike tours, Train
`tours to national parks, and Cruise ship tours.
`
`Use consistent and concise phrasing: The collection of items should be
`reviewed to ensure consistency and conciseness. Users are likely to feel
`more comfortable and be more successful with Animal, Vegetable,
`and Mineral than with Information about animals, Vegeta—
`ble choices you can make, and Viewing mineral catego-
`ries.
`
`Bring the keyword to the left: Try to write menu items so that the first
`word aids the user in recognizing and discriminating among items.
`Users scan menu items from left to right; if the first word indicates that
`this item is not relevant, they can begin scanning the next item.
`
`3.6.3 Graphic layout and design
`
`The constraints of screen width and length, display rate, character set, and
`highlighting techniques strongly influence the graphic layout of menus.
`Presenting 50 states as menu items was natural for the Domestic Information
`Display System built by NASA on a large screen with rapid display rate. On
`the other hand, the CompuServe Information Service, which must accommo-
`date microcomputer users with 40-column displays over 30-character-pep
`second telephone lines, used the main menu page shown in Figure 3.11. An
`improved menu with greater breadth and more distinctive terms was
`introduced in 1985 (Figure 3.12). As users move down the tree, they find the
`page numbers always displayed at the upper right, a title, numbered
`
`

`
`124
`
`Chapter 3
`
`Menu Selection and Form Fillin
`
`Figure 3.11
`
`Earl)’ Version Of C°mP“5e"Ve mam
`menu. The items are not sufficiently
`distinctive; for example, users would
`have a hard time deciding where to
`look for programs to assist them with
`home e1"eekb°°k management
`(Courtesy of CompuServe,
`Incorporated, Columbus, OH.)
`
`COMPUSERVE
`
`PAGE cIs~1
`
`COMPUSERVE INFORMATION SERVICE
`
`HOME SERVICE S
`BUSINESS & FINANCIAL
`PERSONAL COMPUT INS
`SERVICES FOR PROFESSIONALS
`
`USER INFORMAT ION
`INDEX
`
`ENTER YOUR SELECTION NUMBER,
`OR H FOR MORE INFORMATION.
`
`choices, and instructions. This consistent pattern puts users at ease and helps
`them to sort out the contents. Menu designers should establish guidelines for
`consistency of at least these menu components:
`
`- Titles: Some people prefer centered titles, but left justification is an
`acceptable approach, especially with slow display rates.
`- Item placement: Typically items are left justified with the item number or
`letter preceding the item description. Blank lines may be used to
`separate meaningful groups of items. If multiple columns are used, a
`consistent pattern of numbering or lettering should be used (for
`example, down the columns).
`
`Informat ion
`
`Compu Se rve
`1 Instructions /User
`Find a Topic
`Communicat; ions /Bulletin Eds .
`News/Weather/Sports
`5 have 1
`The Electronic MALL/ Shopping
`Money Matters /Markets
`Entertainment/Games
`9 Home/Health/Family
`10 Reference/Education
`11 Computers/Technology
`12 Business/Other Interests
`
`234
`
`678
`
`Enter choice number
`
`!
`
`Figure 3.12
`
`Revised CompuServe main menu
`with more items and more
`distinctive Separation among
`items. Compare to Figure 3.11.
`(Courtesy of CompuServe,
`Incorporaledr Columbusr OH-)
`
`

`
`3.6 Menu Screen Design
`
`125
`
`- Instructions: The instructions should be identical in each menu, and
`
`should be placed in the same position. This rule includes instructions
`about traversals, help, or function-key usage.
`
`Error messages: If the users make an unacceptable choice, the message
`should appear in a consistent position.
`Status reports: Some systems indicate which portion of the menu
`structure is currently being searched, which page of the structure is
`currently being viewed, or which choices must be made to complete a
`task. This information should appear in a consistent position.
`
`Consistent formats help users to locate necessary information, focus
`users’ attention on relevant material, and reduce users’ anxiety by offering
`predictability.
`In addition, since disorientation is a potential problem, techniques to
`indicate position in the menu structure can be useful. In books, different
`fonts and typeface indicate chapter, section, and subsection organization.
`Similarly, in menu trees, as the user goes down the tree structure, the titles
`can be designed to indicate the level or distance from the main menu. If
`different fonts, typefaces, or highlighting techniques are available, they can
`be used beneficially. But even simple techniques with only upper case
`characters can be effective; for example,
`
`~k~k')<*k‘k7k**k*1c**k~k**k**i(**~I<**$<**‘k
`*
`MAIN MENU
`*
`‘Ari******‘k‘k*****~)<****‘k*J(**‘k**
`
`followed by
`
`*
`
`* * HOME SERVICES *
`
`*
`
`x
`
`followed by
`
`- — NEWSPAPERS — —
`
`followed by
`
`New York Times
`
`gives a clear indication of progress down the tree. When traversal back up
`the tree or to an adjoining menu at the same level is done, the user has a
`feeling of confidence in the action.
`
`

`
`126
`
`Chapter 3
`
`Menu Selection and Form Fillin
`
`Figure 3.13
`
`Cascade of menus from PRODIGY Information Service.
`Services Company, White Plains, NY.)
`
`(Courtesy of Prodigy
`
`With linear sequences of menus, the users can be given a simple visual
`presentation of position in the sequence by the use of a position marker.
`In a computer-assisted instruction sequence with 12 menu frames,
`at
`position marker just below the menu items might show progress. In the
`first
`frame, the position marker was + ——————— ——, in the second frame
`it was —+ ——————— ——, and in the last frame it was ————————— ——+. The
`users can gauge their progress, and can see how much remains to be
`done. The position marker served to separate the items from the instruc-
`tions in a natural way, and the position was indicated in a nonobtrusive
`manner.
`
`With graphic user interfaces, many possibilities exist for showing succes-
`sive levels of a tree-structured menu or progress through linear sequences. A
`common approach is to show a cascade of successive menu boxes set slightly
`lower than and slightly to the right of the previous items (Figure 3.13). For
`pull-down menus, walking menus are perceptually meaningful, but can
`present a motor challenge to move the cursor in the appropriate direction
`(Figure 3.14).
`With rapid high-resolution displays, more elegant visual representations
`are possible. With enough screen space, it is possible to show a large portion
`of the menu map, and to allow users to point at a menu anywhere in the tree.
`Graphic designers or layout artists may be useful consultants in design
`projects.
`
`

`
`3.7 Selection Mechanisms
`
`File
`
`spelling Uiew
`
`[an Font Size Slgle Format
`./P|ainText
`Ilnld
`/I6/II.‘
`strik-e—I-hru
`filmlllllllfl
`mailman
`Underline
`lllgrd Underline
`Double gndertine
`Superscript
`Subscript
`
`Figure 3.14
`Walking menus are a motor challenge to users who must move the cursor down to
`the proper item and then carefully to the right to produce the submenu. This
`example from Claris’s MacWrite II shows selection of colors for text. (Courtesy of
`Claris Corp., Santa Clara, CA.)
`
`______________z__________._
`
`3.7 Selection