I think it's interesting to place "Useful" at the 4th level of the pyramid, above functional, performant/secure, and usable. The author themself writes "Usabili

I think it's interesting to place "Useful" at the 4th level of the pyramid, above functional, performant/secure, and usable. The author themself writes "Usability marks potential, and if nobody is using it do we care?" - and why would anyone use it if it's not useful? Personally I would reorder this with Useful at the bottom, then Functional, then Usable. It doesn't even need to work for you to ask people, "If you had a magic button that you could do this thing for you, would you want it?" Maybe this is edging towards "Product Quality" rather than "Software Quality", but I think the two are intertwined.