The Optimal Number of Menu Options per Panel

Abstract

As the number of levels of a hierarchical menu structure grows, users find it difficult to navigate from their current location to their desired location. Despite the navigation problem, designers of menu interfaces may want to trade more depth for less breadth in order to take advantage of funneling. Indeed, Lee and MacGregor (1985) have presented an analysis of search time that suggests that the optimal number of options per menu panel over a wide range of conditions is in the range of only four to eight. However, Lee and MacGregor's analysis applies only to cases where the user cannot restrict the scope of search based on either experience with the menu panel or on the organization of the options on the panel. The analysis is extended to cases of restricted search. Assuming optimal grouping, the optimal number of alternatives on a single page ranges from 16 to 78 across the same parameter values explored by Lee and MacGregor.

Depth vs Breath in the Arrangement of Web Links

“…This would get a bigger and more diverse group of users. Also, although a number of theoretical/analytical studies (Lee & MacGregor, 1985;Paap & Roske-Hofstrand, 1986;Fisher et al, 1990) have tried to model menu selection, there has still been no attempt to apply those models to online information retrieval (as applied to hierarchical information structure) especially to take into account user expertise (expert Vs novice), age and other individual differences.…”

Revisiting breadth vs. depth in menu structures for blind users of screen readers

“…Tradeoffs between breadth and depth have been extensively examined through numerous empirical studies, generally leading to the conclusion that broad/shallow structures have better task performance times and error rates, and user satisfaction than narrow/deep structures (Landauer and Nachbar, 1985;Miller, 1981;Snowberry et al, 1983;Kiger, 1984;Macgregor et al, 1986;Papp and Roske-Hofstrand, 1986;Wallace et al, 1987;Jacko and Salvendy, 1996;Larson and Czerwinski, 1998;Zaphiris et al, 2003;Commaford et al, 2008).…”

“…Although categorization of choices can be a factor in helping users efficiently handle broad menu structures (Snowberry et al, 1983;Papp and Roske-Hofstrand, 1986), studies comparing breadth vs. depth have generally focused on cognitive/memory issues and scanning strategies as the main factors presumed to contribute to the differences between these classes of menu designs.…”

Navigation behavior models for link structure optimization

“…Later, Landauer and Nachbar (1985) extended their model to menus where links on pages were ordered alphabetically. Paap and Roske-Hofstrand (1986) added the possibility that links were categorized. The models of Lee and MacGregor and Paap and Roske-Hofstrand were not evaluated on real data.…”