CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Usability and User Interface DesignSpeech and dialogue systemsHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

A comparison of broad versus deep auditory menu structures

Open access
Commarford, Patrick M., Lewis, James R., Smither, Janan Al-Awar, Gentzler, Marc D.·2008·Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
DOI 10.1518/001872008x250665
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 modern 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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1518/001872008x250665

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When the number of options was shortened, users with shorter spans actually performed worse than their counterparts with longer spans.

    “When the number of options was shortened, users with shorter spans actually performed worse than their counterparts with longer spans.”

    From Reducing working memory load in spoken dialogue systems (2009) · cites this paper as Commarford et al., 2008

  • If users do not have to remember all options, but only need to select the appropriate choice from a list, users with short working memory spans profit from longer lists of options.

    “Commarfordetal.(2008)showedthatifusersdonothavetoremember all options, but only need to select the appropriate choice from a list, users with short working memory spans profit from longer lists of options.”

    From Reducing working memory load in spoken dialogue systems (2009) · cites this paper as Commarford et al., 2008

  • Our results complement Commarford et al.'s (2008) finding that users with a lower WMS benefit from being presented with more options at a time, because at each step in the interaction, they are more likely to be presented with the correct choice.

    “Thus, our results complement Commarford et al.'s (2008) finding that users with a lower WMS benefit from being presented with more options at a time, because at each step in the interaction, they are more likely to be presented with the correct choice.”

    From Reducing working memory load in spoken dialogue systems (2009) · cites this paper as Commarford et al.'s (2008)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Commarford, P. M., Lewis, J. R., Smither, J. A.-A., & Gentzler, M. D.
Affiliations
  • IBM (United States) (US)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Commarford, Patrick M.
ORCID
Lewis, James R.
Venue
Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2008-02
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
77-89
ISSN
  • 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-8181
DOI
10.1518/001872008x250665
OpenAlex
W2049264818
Cited by
26
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
8.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
interactive voice response, menu depth, working memory capacity, Miller's law, user satisfaction, human-computer interaction design
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Florida, Humans, Software Design, Task Performance and Analysis, User-Computer Interface, Electronic Mail, Speech Recognition Software

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review