The NY Times Reader is now available for the Mac in beta form. If you can get past the fact that it’s built with Silverlight, and allow the installation of yet another crappy proprietary Microsoft technology, you will be rewarded with an enjoyable and readable electronic newspaper experience. Once installed, the underlying technology is transparent and you will forget all about it.

Reading text on the web of any significant length can be difficult, but I have been enduring the awkward experience of reading my favorite newspapers on the web for these reasons:

• The online incarnation of most newspapers is free and immediately available. Daily home delivery of the Times is $12.80 a week. 
• I enjoy the interactive features. It’s a huge time saver when you can see a list of the most read stories. I also frequently use the “email to a friend” links.
• It’s a more environmentally responsible way to get my news. (I’m going to assume that the energy and resources spent producing the printed version of the paper far exceeds whatever energy it takes to operate my computer)

I could go into some detail about the flaws of the web versions of most papers, but it really just boils down to readability. It’s just easier to read the printed version. The Times Reader is a nice compromise between the printed and online versions. It has many of the interactive features I’m used to from the site: email to a friend, printer friendly versions and the ability to save the article. There is also a more logical implementation of text-size adjustment in a slider tool. But what really stands out to me (and not just because I’m a designer) is the columned layout and typography inspired by the printed version. The narrower columns of Cheltenham are much easier to read than the single-column CSS-styled text found in the web versions. And, adding to the whole newspaper-y experience, it just looks more like the Times. Also quite useful is that the program automatically syncs and keeps seven days of content for offline viewing. The interface is simple and usable. Navigating to different sections is easy with a grid of large buttons at the top. 

It isn’t without its flaws, though I’ll go easy since it’s still in beta. The most glaring issue is that you can’t highlight and copy text, something present in the PC version. I have no clue why that would be so difficult to implement. The Reader includes accompanying photos with stories, but there is no video. Perhaps because the current implementation on the Times web site is with Flash. 

The only thing that may keep me from using the Reader in the future? Once out of beta, access to it will be restricted to those with either a paid subscription to the Times or a Reader-only subscription for $15 a month / $170 a year. That’s a little steep for something I can get for free, even if free means tolerating those web readability issues. But if you’re a hard-core news junky or former New Yorker, it might be worth the expense.

So the other day I pulled out of my wallet a twenty, a ten, two fives and a couple ones. The fives had two different designs, the ten was a different color than the twenty, and the ones looked like they were relics from a bygone age. The question entered my mind, why does our money have to be so ugly?

Look, I’m not complaining about the big purple 5 on the new bill, I’m complaining that there’s no system enveloping the design of our money. It’s just a mishmash of vaguely related-looking concepts. It’s like whatever new idea they had for an individual design was added without regard to what came before or what would come next.

When the Supreme Court got kicked out of the Capitol building in 1935, they didn’t just house them in a couple of chicken coops in the back yard of the White House. No, they designed and built a suitable home for a co-equal part of the government. One that fit with the overall look and feel of other notable facades in Washington and reflected the court’s position relative to the other branches

In contrast, our current lineup of legal tender is a garish collection of individual thoughts that refuse to work in concert. A wad of our currency has all the design integrity of an airport parking lot filled with VWs, SUVs, and station wagons, all painted different colors, all from different manufacturers. Our money is supposed to be a reflection of the full faith and credit of our country. In a way, it’s the most widely distributed and most tangible reflection of our national brand. Shouldn’t it get the same level of thoughtfulness as our great buildings?

We could learn a thing or two from the British.

Pardon this latest “if you’re a man of a certain age” moment, but Speed Racer looks like it’s going to rock.

As anyone who’s driven across Wyoming a couple of times like I have knows, it’s got to be one of the top five most beautiful states in our current collection of fifty. Its got Yellowstone, Old Faithful, the Grand Tetons, the Bighorn Mountains, Devil’s Tower, dinosaur fossils, and breathtakingly beautiful vistas. With all that, here’s their new commemorative state quarter:

What a missed opportunity. I know that cowboys and buckin’ broncos are a big part of their heritage (and that is their state symbol) but with all that natural beauty at hand, they pick what appears to be a chrome silhouette better suited for the mudflaps of an 18-wheeler hauling cattle to market? It’s not even an attractive engraving. It looks more like something cheaply produced in a South China metal stamping plant.

We all know how Apple’s focus on the customer-experience design has resulted in a passionate user base, surging profits and a stellar stock performance. But how does this apply to other companies?

“…A three-year study of more than 40 Fortune 500 companies by the research firm Peer Insight found that companies focused on customer-experience design outperformed the S&P 500 by a 10-to-1 margin from 2000 to 2005.” FastCompany

Today, the New York Times got smaller. Like, a lot smaller. It’s only an inch and a half, but as you can see above, when compared to the previous size, it’s quite noticeable. They say it will save them $10 million dollars a year and conforms to the way other papers are made. They didn’t change the layout; it’s still six columns, but they’re narrower by a quarter inch each. The masthead is smaller, as are the story headlines, but the typeface for the text appears to be the same size as before. Personally, I hate it. From a design perspective, I think the type is too big for the narrower columns and the big beautiful masthead seems just a bit too small. All in all, it’s a more awkward experience.

The bigger problem, though, if from a branding perspective. See, the Times is the greatest paper in the world. As the paper of record, it’s our first draft of history. It holds that position above all other American papers, and it’s well deserved. The fact that the paper was physically bigger than most other broadsheets helped reinforce it’s position at the top of the journalistic food chain, even if it was subtle. “We’re bigger because we’re more important. Deal with it.” Honestly, in some way, it helped justify its higher cost to readers like me. Now, with its diminution, it feels and looks like just another paper. In fact, they used that standardization argument in their justification of the move.

I know some will say that in this era of the embattled newspaper, this was bound to happen, even to the Times. They’ll say it makes good business sense. Ten million dollars is a lot to save. Sure, but what will it cost to save that money? The Times, like any other company marketing a product, needs to remember that a lot of consumers don’t base all their purchase decisions on the quality of the product inside the packaging alone. Premium brands differentiate themselves through experience. My experience enjoying the Times just decreased. It feels cheaper. It feels smaller. It feels standardized.

Honestly, I’d have paid a little more to keep the bigger sheets.

No drop-shadows, no reflections, no cute button, no trendy colors, not even any gradients! The designers of the new CNN.com eschewed every trendy tool designers are using today. I have to say I was a little put off. How dare they not show-off their photoshop wizardry! I came around, however. What a novel approach, use type, good layouts, clean lines, and simple color scheme to give it a modernist look. I applaud the design team for going back to the basics, and creating something fresh and innovative.

ADDENDUM: They now have a huge banner ad at the top of the site that pushes the most important content below the fold on my Macbook (1440×900px). What a great way to trash a design.

This week Minneapolis played host to Flash designers, developers, and everything in between at the Flashbelt 2007 conference, and some designers from ideapark were along for the ride. Going into this conference, I thought it was mostly going to be product demo’s, how to’s, and possibly an example here or there of some pretty cool work. Well, I was wrong. It turned out to be one of the most inspirational weeks I have had in a long time.

What can I say? Day one blew my mind. It started out with your standard keynote. Adobe advertised some products, talked a lot about CS3 and all of the cool new stuff you could do with said software. Eh, I could read all of that on their website. Luckily though, the next speaker was Craig Swann….wow. Here’s a guy who gets to play for a living. Without boring you with details, his lecture on thought process was amazing. It was like I was back in design school, being reminded how the concept process is the most important part of the design process, and the most fun aspect of design. I think sometimes as interactive designers we can get in the mode of just skinning IA and making it look good. Without giving you a play by play of the day, a couple of blurbs about the other two speakers.

Jeremy Thorp, his Pixel Economy experiment is amazing! It’s a literal visualization of an economy using pixels trading color values, beautiful and thought provoking.

Joshua Davis. You probably know who he is, and why he is amazing. The really great thing is that he is opening up all of this source files for people to learn how he does his amazing work. Very cool.

Day Two. Pretty cool as well. A little more technical, but still worth going to. Saw some great experiments with particles in flash (something I have always been fascinated with), more Adobe product demos, and some other experimental works. Another of my favorite lectures was at the end of day two by Calle & Pelle Sjoenell. Two ad execs from Fallon who talked about the nature of interactive of media and why traditional advertising is stagnating. They have an interesting take, as one of the brothers made the leap from traditional advertising to the interactive area .It was a really fascinating conversation about the importance of the idea, and more important than that, the importance of being first with that idea. The word of mouth for a groundbreaking idea can be more important for the client than what the idea is trying to promote. Even a new idea that could be potentially be offensive, is better than an idea that nobody cares about. I found this to be quite interesting, as this is an idea that we believe in strongly at ideapark.

Day Three. Very boring Flex and AIR demo to start. However, I think Adobe AIR (formerly known as Apollo) is going to change the way the people think about the line between online and offline applications, and it will allow us “web designers” to try our hand at UI design. So it was worth seeing. The final presentation I saw was also one of my favorites. It was given by David-Lowe- Rogstad and it was about redefining how the workflow process should work for interactive products. His whole premise is that we should break down the rigid process a lot of use now, and break it down into smaller chunks with more testing. More doing, less talking. Very fascinating, very thought provoking.

The name Flashbelt for this conference was a misnomer. While, it did center around flash. It was a conference about interactive media and everything that is involved in making it. Even if you were a designer, developer, or manager who wasn’t really interested in Flash, this conference left you feeling inspired. If you didn’t go this year for those reasons, trust me, go next year.

One of the things that makes Apple’s product experience terrific is the first couple of minutes you interact with whatever shiney new thing you’ve just purchased. Clearly, Apple spends a lot of time engineering a dramatic and rewarding box-opening for consumers. In fact, I’d guess that Apple spends more time thinking about a consumer’s first interaction with a device than most companies do on their product’s entire user experience. It’s all part of the Apple show and is one of the reasons you see so many box opening ceremonies recorded online in step-by-step photo albums the moment the new goods hit the street.

Contrast this with my recent experience buying a Palm Treo 755p. Not only was the packaging all Sprinted-up (yellow…who picked yellow as their corporate color?) and totally utilitarian in nature, but the phone geek behind the counter got the privilege of breaking my phone’s seal by ripping open the box, turning it on for the first time, peeling all the protective plastic off, and basically manhandling the poor thing and mashing down all its buttons for 10 minutes before handing it over to me. I mean, it was warm and a little moist when I got hold of it and it was brand new. Can you imagine something like that happening in an Apple store? Who wants to get a brand new iPod all smeared up with someone else’s fingerprints before you even leave the store? Nobody.

In my opinion, Apple will need to figure out a new way to sell cell phones if they want to maintain their product’s mystique. I predict they’ve worked out a way to sell and activate their phones through AT&T that only entails the scanning of a bar code on the box. Everything else will happen automagically as soon as you boot the thing up. Anything less would not be a good show.

Now this is an Olympic logo. Beautiful work.