Four different methods for inputting enemy situation data--(1) typing, (2) typing with error correction, (3) menus (choosing appropriate entry from a list), and (4) typing with autocompletion and an English option--were compared for speed, accuracy, and ease of use. Thirty-two enlisted men and women, none of whom had used the inputting techniques being studied, were randomly assigned to the four method groups. The subjects acted as intelligence staff entering information about the enemy into a computerized data base. Subjects received free text messages describing enemy actions, extracted necessary information, and entered the appropriate codes into a variation of the Enemy Situation Data Add (ESDA) format of the TOS system. Results indicated that menus were more error free than the other inputting methods; also, menus were popular among the subjects and did not have higher mean times than the other inputting methods. To maximize the benefits of the menus, special attention should be given to the design of an operational menu-based inputting system, particularly with respect to length, display speed, and item selection. Spelling correctors or autocompletion should be considered only for experienced users and in operational settings that specifically require such aids. (CMV)