A comparison of broad versus deep auditory menu structures

    Authors

    P. M. Commarford; J. R. Lewis; J. A. A. Smither;M. D. Gentzler

    Comments

    Authors: contact us about adding a copy of your work at STARS@ucf.edu

    Abbreviated Journal Title

    Hum. Factors

    Keywords

    WORKING-MEMORY CAPACITY; LATENT-VARIABLE APPROACH; SHORT-TERM-MEMORY; INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES; PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION; USABILITY; COMPATIBILITY; INFORMATION; PRINCIPLES; SPAN; Behavioral Sciences; Engineering, Industrial; Ergonomics; Psychology, ; Applied; Psychology

    Abstract

    Objective: The primary purpose of this experiment was to gain a greater understanding of the utilization of working memory when interacting with a speech-enabled interactive voice response (IVR) system. Background: A widely promoted guideline advises limiting IVR menus to five or fewer items because of constraints of the human memory system, commonly citing Miller's (1956) paper. The authors argue that Miller's paper does not, in fact, support this guideline. Furthermore, applying modem theories of working memory leads to the opposite conclusion - that reducing menu length by creating a deeper structure is actually more demanding of users' working memories and leads to poorer performance and satisfaction. Method: Participants took a working memory capacity test and then attempted to complete a series of e-mail tasks using one of two IVR designs (functionally equivalent, but one with a broad menu structure and the other with a deep structure). Results: Users of the broad-structure IVR performed better and were more satisfied than users of the deep-structure IVR. Furthermore, this effect was more pronounced for those with low working memory capacity. Conclusion: Results indicate that creating a deeper structure is more demanding of working memory resource than the alternative of longer, shallower menus. Application: This experiment has important practical implications for all systems with auditory menus (particularly IVRs) because it provides empirical evidence refuting a widely promoted design practice.

    Journal Title

    Human Factors

    Volume

    50

    Issue/Number

    1

    Publication Date

    1-1-2008

    Document Type

    Article

    Language

    English

    First Page

    77

    Last Page

    89

    WOS Identifier

    WOS:000253661300007

    ISSN

    0018-7208

    Share

    COinS