It's wonderful that technology experts have been able to develop devices that can enhance the lives of people with disabilities. Sometimes, though, their inventions are created from a technological perspective rather than a human one.

One company requires disabled people to use a finger to sign a document. The touch screen must have contact with skin and not with any other device (including fingernails). Many people with disabilities, though, cannot manipulate their fingers or joints (wrists, elbows, shoulders) so they cannot sign their names. Others may be limbless.

Assistive technology devices for speech-impaired people are designed to enable users to communicate in a myriad of situations through telephone or in-person conversations.

Had these devices been designed by nurses or speech therapists, however, they might have recognized that most users possess poor technological skills (and, often, diminished cognitive abilities) and have difficulty integrating these machines into their thought processes.

Computer instructions (when they exist) would often be more helpful if written by cooks and chefs, who are accustomed to recording detailed recipes and ensuring that steps are not skipped or completed out of order.

Techies may have meant well and improved upon what was previously available. A little more help from some other folks could have yielded even better results.

"Just because you can implement cool stuff out of the box doesn't mean you should."

"...the focus should be on new value not on the tools that are available."

So says Mark C. Anderson, CAE, CEO of American Society for Surgery of the Hand, evaluating results of a focus group of members who discussed the usefulness of various web tools.

As I admired the new telephone system installed at my association office, I realized that quite a few of the Board members who volunteered in the office several times each week would not know how to use it.

Most were in their 60s or 70s and having to be taught how to use a telephone was a demeaning experience.

The previous system featured a switchboard at every desk. To make a call, a person would press an unlit button to get a connection. To transfer a call to somebody else in the office, a person would put the call on hold, call the other person on the intercom to tell them which button to press to pick up the call, and that person would press the correct flashing light and get connected. (Sometimes people accidentally pressed the wrong button and interrupted another call).

If a button had been flashing for awhile, a person could press it to connect to that call and ask if the person was being helped.

Everybody knew which lines were in use and which weren't. They liked that.

The new system was smaller (and sharper looking). Only the receptionist had a switchboard. If the phone rang at a person's desk, the call was for them. They didn't need to know who else was making or receiving calls. If they wanted to transfer a call, they would press a button that sent the call to another extension. To make a call, they would just pick up the receiver and automatically be connected.

Everybody knew only what was going on at their desk. They didn't like that.

So, I once again explained how the new system was more efficient, cheaper, and less of a space hog on each person's desk. The receptionist would answer all incoming calls and route them to the appropriate person. Everyone else could do their jobs and not the receptionist's job.

Furthermore, the old system was being phased out by the manufacturer. Neither the system nor replacement parts would be available much longer and repair services would be more expensive and, eventually, non-existent.

They got used to the new system.

New technology always faces barriers to adoption. That should be expected and handled respectfully. When moving forward, make sure that audiences (like Boards of Directors) understand the value of the change, even if they aren't personally comfortable with it.

Then help them get comfortable.

Can all of the employees in your association access the membership database? Probably.

Yet, some big corporations appear unable to provide the same access for their workers.

A health insurance company will say a policy "is not one of theirs" because it is not held in that particular office location. Customers need to be transferred several times before landing in the correct office (which cannot be reached directly).

The internet division of a telecommunications company can handle repairs but does not have access to details about the subscriber's non-internet service, where the problem may actually reside.

Always view database infrastructure from the member/customer point of view and compile and disseminate information in a manner that will best serve the member or customer.

Businesses (and associations) are examining the benefits of centralizing software on a virtual drive that can power all of an organization's work stations. Each desktop may no longer need its own version of every application.

That same principle can apply to documents and databases. Everything can be stored on a virtual drive with users accessing and editing, as necessary. Some associations (especially large ones) are already doing that.

From an individual user's point of view, use of a virtual drive for that purpose has advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages:

1. The user can access the drive from anywhere (provided the user's computer is programmed to connect to the virtual drive). Working at a central office is not necessary.

2. Theft of sensitive information from stolen laptops, an all too common occurrence, will cease to be a worry. Vital information will be stored on a virtual drive, accessible to the laptop through a password-protected connection.

3. Multiple versions of various documents will not have to reside in each employee's computer. An up-to-date version will be housed on the virtual drive, accessible to everyone.

Disadvantages:

1. When the system is down, users won't be able to access anything -internet, database, documents, or personal files. Work will come to a halt.

2. To protect against that, employees will probably still maintain multiple versions of various documents on their computers or flash drives, so they can work off-line.

3. Updated versions of documents may suddenly appear on the virtual drive. A system will be needed to alert users to the presence of an update.

4. Unauthorized updates of documents may also appear. A system will be needed to approve updates before everybody starts using them.

It would be nice if virtualization decisions were to be based on user benefits. In all likelihood, though, they'll be based on financial benefits.

I just returned from an out-of-town meeting and discovered my hard wire and wireless networks were unable to connect to the internet.

My service provider informed me the problem was a circuit on the company's outside equipment. I was assured it would be repaired tomorrow (Monday) morning.

Fine, but I have two days of e-mails to read (business and personal), a blog item to post, and an association web site to update to reflect that the recent meeting has already taken place.

Fortunately, the Skokie Public Library was open today, and I could work (for one hour) from the computer lab. I had to wait 25 minutes for a machine. My visit was inconvenient but a very welcome safety net.

It's amazing how much we rely on computer technology for important things in our lives.

If we lose electric power, we light candles and keep the refrigerator door shut. If a car is being repaired, we take public transportation, rent a car, or bum a ride from a colleague.

But when the computer is down, there is often no adequate alternative. Our connection to the world is severely (and, often, traumatically) damaged.

It's great to be able to employ a device that can deliver such great value on a regular basis. But it is frightening how much we rely on it for so many vital tasks.

It would be nice if the same enthusiasm that led to creation of new technologies would lead to fixing problems with current technology:

1. Enable use of the Tab key in e-mail messages.

2. Allow viewers to back-arrow out of a web site, even if the web site didn't want you to do that.

3. List e-mail messages in the more logical "newest at bottom" order, so users could automatically proceed to the next message instead of to the previous one (AOL allows this).

4. Prevent formulas from disappearing when inserting new lines in spreadsheets.

5. Explain things in plain English (often, things aren't explained at all). Just as people who drive cars are not auto mechanics, people who use computers are not computer mechanics. They should not have to click all over a screen, trying to figure out how something works.

Does the internet change the way we think?

Here are a few interesting perspectives. You can also wade through the thoughts at edge.org

Some people don't let, or can't let, the internet change the way their brains work. That may be reflected in how they use e-mail (if they use it at all).

With the increase in cell phone use, reverse lookup is becoming less helpful, since it only identifies owners of published land lines. That makes it harder to locate people who are trying to hide.

We need a public cell phone directory.

Just because you can respond to an e-mail message instantly doesn't mean you should.

Too many people swiftly scan e-mail messages and send hurried responses, often failing to proofread and sometimes erroneously clicking "send to all," when an individual reply would have been best. Their comments, too, are not always well thought out.

Treat e-mail as you would an important document. Read it carefully. Think about what it means to you and how you will respond.

Thoughtfully craft a reply, proofread more than once (including every time you edit it), and then send it.

Be patient - the world can wait for your answer. A rushed response will just increase the chance you'll make a mistake, omit something important, or utter an opinion better left unsaid.