The issue of quality has been extensively discussed in Interpreting Studies (IS). Quality
is subjective, ineffable and cultural. As the “aspiring-to-science community” (hereafter
“ATSC”1) defines “scientific” as empirical, quantifiable and objective2, it is bound to struggle
when dealing with such a concept. Yet, precisely because it stipulates that a scientific
approach requires a quantifiable dimension, it has to try and define quality in an objective
manner. Shackled by its postulates, the ATSC has drawn upon two approaches
that have predictably come short. One vainly seeks to define quality and subsequently
“objective and quantifiable” criteria to assess it. The other claims to draw on marketing
and strives to measure user satisfaction, primarily through questionnaires. The most
advanced work in marketing, however, has taken on board the findings of cognitive
