As only the most observant among you will have noticed, I have changed my job designation; so instead of running my small charity, humanITy, I have gone the way of all flesh in my peer group and become a consultant.
You can rely on the editor to ensure that this column is not a commercial puff but the change of job has made me see some old problems in new ways. The biggest shift is my move from 'high level' principles to the consideration of product development and some features are already emerging.
First, and most surprising - and I am sure you didn't need to be reminded of this but I include it for the sake of coherence - there is still a huge amount of assistive technology research and development conducted by individuals and very small businesses with no connections whatsoever with potential users.
There really are 'mad inventors' out there who know what we 'ought' to want. Being numerate, I haven't lost count of the number of mobility aids that have been developed for blind people but have never enjoyed sustained production but it runs into double figures in 20 years.
User involvement in basic requirements definitions is extremely rare. There are instances of user testing but this is usually too late to make changes without significant additional cost, is conducted by technophiles rather than a properly weighted random sample and is expected to be provided free of charge by disabled people who are often poor.
Secondly, in spite of the rhetoric of integration, almost everything connected with disability, from special computers to care homes, is dull at best and more often ugly. The evidence shows that disabled people - and children and students in particular - want to be as identical with their peers as possible in every way? It's bad enough being disabled without being condemned to dull utilitarianism.
Thirdly, AT operates in a twilight zone between altruism and profit. There is much talk of the "business case" (Ability 65 Spring 2007) but the only real commercial case is the securing of public sector contracts by companies in near monopoly situations.
The problem with this 'cosy' syndrome is that Governments seek and are supplied with conservative functionality and design; I am continually struck by how slowly AT is developing compared with, say, consumer electronics.
Finally, we seem not to have cracked the concept of modularity so that supposedly standard technologies can be effortlessly integrated with AT. This will be an issue of vital importance as we move towards telecare. Retro engineering monitoring systems will be far too expensive; if we are to reap the benefits of reduced hospitalisation and nursing home occupation through the use of different forms of telecare, integration will be vital. To take one example, if we want to monitor the eating habits of elderly people living alone, it should be simple to plug monitoring devices into cupboards and fridges.
All in all, the AT sector needs a shake-up, with new players, more deals with young, start-up companies, creative links with art and design courses and a general willingness to put a welcome smile on the face of disability.
I don't expect people to go on "glad to be disabled" marches but people who have problems do not necessarily need to be treated as if all life is miserable; and it might even be that we can face our difficulties better if there is joy and variety in our lives.
Underlying these observations, I think that it is all of a piece to say that we have found it difficult culturally to escape a rather 'biblical' attitude to disability - the leper, the palsy, the dropsy - which sees it as alien and, frequently, as an outward sign of inner corruption.
As longevity increases, in spite of medical developments, the prevalence and severity of impairment is bound to increase. There will have to be a time, not far from now, when using a wheelchair isn't an anomalous nuisance; and, therefore, just because AT supplies a niche market it need not be a segregated market. Niches need not be ghettos.