It amused me that Alexander's _A Pattern Language_ was 90% about habitability and 10% about building whereas I had the feeling GoF was the opposite.
That is, I believe Alexander's version of design patterns would have things like "Intention Revealing Names" and code reviews focusing on "Clarity, Consistency, and Correctness (in that order)"--things that help subsequent developors live in and enjoy the code and design.
Software exposes (at least) two faces ... the user facing one ("habitability") and the (future) developer facing one ("building").
GoF approaches from the "building" side since it was created by and for programmers. Another way of thinking about this is that GoF is describing the experience of the design as a developer having to "inhabit" it, rather than a user's experience of the same.
That's why Alexander is not a particularly useful book for builders, since it focuses on the user's experience of the design when inhabiting it, rather than the constructors' experience of the same design when creating or modifying it.
A version of GoF that focused on the user experience would be a completely different book than the one we know.
That is, I believe Alexander's version of design patterns would have things like "Intention Revealing Names" and code reviews focusing on "Clarity, Consistency, and Correctness (in that order)"--things that help subsequent developors live in and enjoy the code and design.