An experimental comparison between two methods of designing a menu-tre
e interface for an information system is described. The 'automatic' me
thod is based on the ADISSA methodology (architectural design of infor
mation systems based on structured analysis) according to which the in
terface is derived automatically from dataflow diagrams (DFD) as a by-
product of the system analysis stage. In the 'manual' ('conventional')
method the designer constructs an appropriate interface by applying c
ommon principles of interface design. The objective of the experiment
is to find out which design method yields a better initial interface,
before it is given to users for further improvements. The user's viewp
oint is adopted i.e., the interface was evaluated subjectively. The hy
pothesis is that menu-trees designed automatically are as good as thos
e designed by people. The experiment included six information system d
evelopment projects. One menu-tree interface was designed automaticall
y for each system. Four others were designed manually by different des
igners who were assigned randomly to the systems. The five different i
nterfaces of each system were given to 16 potential users for evaluati
on and comparison. Analysis of the results revealed no significant dif
ference between the mean scores of the two types of interface. Noting
that the automatic menus are obtained as a by-product of the system an
alysis stage, and that they can be improved by users during prototypin
g, it is concluded that the method provides a good start for the inter
face design.