Most of my days are spent at a desk with ISDN access and a computer that's always on. I can call up as many pages as I want, reload to my heart's content and visit a dozen sites in a session if that's what it takes to get the information I need.

That's not the case when I'm traveling. Logging in is just a tad more difficult and a lot slower, while new surcharges for lengthy phone calls in hotels put time at a premium. (I've checked into three hotels in recent trips that promised high-speed access only to find when I got there that it isn't really available.) My new cell phone does two-way messaging but it's not Web ready, which is just as well because the notion of trying to keep up with the news via a one-inch screen seems like the definition of information overload.

At the same time, on this trip I'm parachuting into the lives of people with far less time -- and less justification -- for online news and entertainment than I usually have. Like my constantly on-the-go sister with two young children, a full-time job out of the house and a life full of commitments that stretch beyond the tether of a scrolling mouse no matter how much she enjoys spending time online.

The result: a better understanding of the challenges faced by those who don't have time for a DIY Web experience. Not everyone can search for just the right mix of news, information and entertainment from a wide variety of sites. If you only have five minutes to check headlines or 15 minutes for a stock-sports-news-weather visit, you have to think differently.

There are easy answers but none that are completely acceptable. The notion of personalizing a news site so as to only get the information the user wants bothers some journalists and others who worry that 'the daily me' lets users put on blinders. For instance, a user who left foreign news out of the mix might have logged on October 7 without seeing stories about the bombing of Afghanistan. Someone who doesn't pick business news may not know his or her cable operator was just sold. Crafty sites avoid this by sliding the same link into several different categories, thus increasing the odds that a user will be exposed to news the editor deems important. Unfortunately, that also means redundant headlines for those who want a lot of news.

Putting control in the consumers' hands directly instead of the exercise of selectivity called reading the paper was one of the first topics raised during a recent conversation with an influential former publisher. Never mind that relatively few readers zoom straight through the paper or read every page.

A compromise adopted by some Web sites allows only a certain amount of personalization while the site controls the rest of the page. Still, the static section usually seems to be more about advertising and sponsored sections than informing the user. Call it the 'information sort of wants to be free' model. Then there's nytimes.com, which lets users customize the weather. That's all, just the weather.

Some personalization drops into mailboxes in the form of email alerts about companies or subjects the user follows. In one popular time-saving variation, an editor or producer reads the news from a variety of sites for the user and sends a summary with links to the stories that will keep him or her au courant with a particular topic. This version, often a marketing tool, isn't tailored for the individual but for a sometimes very narrow slice of the online audience.

The strength of this kind of personalization is also its weakness. In Working Girl, Melanie Griffith's character concocts an important deal because she uses information intuitively, reading several seemingly disparate articles and perceiving a common theme that might not be obvious to someone else.

A consumer relying only on that narrow slice is gaining useful targeted information, but may be missing the big picture. He or she also runs the risk of falling into a rut blinding them to different perspectives.

Think of the difference between a library that only delivers specific books instead of letting you browse the shelves. When you can't browse, the chance for intuitive context -- finding a book you never would have looked for, a new author in a subject on which you are well read -- passes you by.

The part of me that wants to think that everyone thrives on soaking up news understands why the notion of too much choice makes folks like that publisher cringe.

Still, just as we can't stop someone from keeping the comics and dumping the rest of the paper, we can't rely on models that force the user into the Internet equivalent of stocks. Flexibility is too important to the very nature of the Web to keep it from others. That means offering a variety of ways to access information and being creative when it comes to options.

For instance, a headline scanner might be interested in checking off stories that are then e-mailed to a preset address. Use the 'white space' of a page to direct people to stories that fit in that interest area and to a few that don't.

Back to that one-inch cell-phone screen. I was at a hockey game the other night when AT&T agreed to merge with Comcast, an announcement that ranked 10 out of 10 in an industry I cover. My cell phone e-mail address wasn't on the office list -- a mixed blessing since the flurry of messages would have swamped the phone -- leaving me well and truly out of the loop for hours. The answer: a quick grab of the Web-ready phone my brother had just been bragging about. Several minute screens later between Bloomberg and CBS Marketwatch I had the headlines. The details could wait until I downloaded my e-mail.