skip to main content
10.1145/2702123.2702177acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
note

Visual Grouping in Menu Interfaces

Published:18 April 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Menu interfaces often arrange options into semantic groups. This semantic structure is then usually conveyed to the user by supplementary visual grouping cues. We investigate whether these visual grouping cues actually help users locate items in menus faster, and whether there is potential for these powerful grouping cues to impede search when used inappropriately. Thirty-six participants performed known-item searches of word menus. These menus differed along three dimensions: (1) whether visual grouping cues were used, (2) whether items were semantically organized, and (3) the number of items belonging to each semantic group. Results show that the usefulness of visual grouping entirely depends on the underlying semantic structure of the menu. When menus were semantically organized, having visual grouping cues delineate the boundaries between large semantic groups resulted in the fastest search times. But when semantically unrelated items were visually grouped together, participants took far longer to locate targets. Menu designers should therefore take great care to avoid visually grouping semantically unrelated items as this has the potential to hinder menu interactions.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p4203-brumby.mp4

mp4

139.8 MB

References

  1. Bae, J. & Watson, B. Reinforcing visual grouping cues to communicate complex informational structure. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20, (2014), 1973--1982.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bailly, G., Oulasvirta, A., Brumby, D.P., & Howes, A. Model of visual search and selection time in linear menus. Proc. CHI '14, ACM (2014), 3865--3874. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Brumby, D.P., Cox, A.L., Chung, J., & Fernandes, B. How does knowing what you are looking for change visual search behavior? Proc. CHI '14, ACM (2014), 3895--3898. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Card, S.K. User perceptual mechanisms in the search of computer command menus. Proc CHI '82, ACM (1982), 190--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Chi, E.H., Rosien, A., Supattanasiri, G., et al. The bloodhound project: Automating discovery of web usability issues using the infoscent simulator. Proc CHI '03, ACM (2003), 505--512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Halverson, T. & Hornof, A.J. The effects of semantic grouping on visual search. Proc CHI EA '08, ACM (2008), 3471--3476. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Parkinson, S.R., Sisson, N., & Snowberry, K. Organization of broad computer menu displays. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23, (1985), 689--697.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Visual Grouping in Menu Interfaces

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2015
      4290 pages
      ISBN:9781450331456
      DOI:10.1145/2702123

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 April 2015

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • note

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '15 Paper Acceptance Rate486of2,120submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader