Quesenbery vs. Nielsen

There are definately differences in the definitions Quesenbery and Nielsen use for usability. Nielsen uses a more philisophical definition, saying there are two main parts of usability-a quality assurance methodology and a belief system that aims to ensure human mastery of the constructed environment. Quensenbery, on the other hand, breaks usability into five parts-effective, efficient, engaging, error tolerant, and easy to learn-where all these together help guide creators to the goal of usable products. Though both of the definitions are useful in helping me understand usability and its importance, I appreciated the Quesenbery definition and article more. The Nielsen article got me thinking about why usability was so important and why it's needed to ensure user rights, but Quensenbery was more helpful because it gave a definition of usabilty that showed me how to check for usability. It seemed much more straight-forward to me and was more useful. As for what technologies we can think about in terms of usability, I think pretty much everything is up for grabs. It seems that everything can always be done better or easier.