Just to be more specific… the ‘ease of doing’ could not entirely replace ‘ease of learning’ because it doesnt take account of a) the internal sense the user has that they know how to do thing, and b) people could get a task done, but having misunderstood how they did it. So the ‘ease of doing’ measure does not (to my mind) transcend the ease of learning. But, of course, it is very useful and complementary.

Efficiency of use and pain tolerance also seem to be complementary, rather than the latter replacing the former.

Memorability and recommendability: this is interesting. As I understand it, memorability is a totally different type of measure than recomendability. Just because someone says or does actually recommend the site, that says nothing about how easily the person could use the system again in the future - which is an important measure.

Also, more rounded thinking would include asking “Why worse?” rather than just “Why better?”.

Thanks
A,

Revisiting: How good is the system at making it easy for humans to connect to each other?

I need to noodle more on this. I don’t think I have it quite right.

Here’s the next stab: How well does the system help forge both implicit and explicit connections among users? How much does the system convert discreet connections between users to fluid connections? Collabonetworkability would be the measurement of communication flow between users.

Let’s break this down yet another way. How is the usability of networked life measured? We all need to admit that usability is still very much tied to ergonomics, meatspace, and standalone applications. Usability doesn’t effectively address human collaboration in an increasingly networked world.

And, as I’ve stated many times in the past, it doesn’t effectively reflect business and need for profits.