[jrochkind1]

I'm not sure and I see your point, but also, you are maybe saying that, effectively, "convenience" or "usability" are values you (and most people) prioritize.

Which is not so different from when the OP article talks about emacs prioritizing "stability" really. "stability" isn't, like an ethical value or something really, it's a practical one, as are many of the others listed in OP.

[tome]

I don't think "convenience" is a value for the buyer of a consumer good any more than "going downhill" is a value for the designer of a roller coaster. It's just easier.

[jrochkind1]

Sometimes people choose a path that is less convenient, they don't always choose the most convenient, right?

You may go to an ice-cream shop further away, because you like their ice cream better. You may choose to buy from an independent bookseller instead of amazon because you want to support them to stay in business. Or you might have to choose between a cheaper but less convenient option (say with two week delivery time), or a more convenient but more expensive option -- some people at some times will choose cheap, others at other times convenience.

Convenience/being "easier" doesn't always win against other values.

This shows that convenience or "easiness" is in fact just one of several values, weighted differently in different contexts.

Or are you talking about the fact that it might not be totally conscious and explicit? True, I think the way the OP is thinking about values, they are not always totally conscious and explicit.

Compare to other values in OP's list -- they aren't all "ethical" at all. Values in this context aren't about morality or ethics, just about what factors are valued. Say, "stability" or "velocity". A software development process doesn't necessarily consciously and explicitly acknowledge that they have chosen "velocity" over "approachability".