If The N.Y. Times were mounted on your wall, it might look like this

By Zachary M. Seward

We’re back in Living Room 2.0 at The New York Times Co. today for their research and development group’s vision of how news will fit into the armchair experience of the future. Ted Roden, a creative technologist in the group, describes two applications for Times content that might work well on your television or other large screens.

The commuter app is a mashup of publicly available traffic cameras, Google Maps, and location-specific content from the Times. Laying out news on a map is a tired concept that rarely lives up to its promise, but this app points to what feels like a truly effective use of geocoded articles and blog posts: informing me of what stands between my current location and my destination. In his keynote address at the O’Reilly Tools of Change Conference, design integration editor Nick Bilton discussed some other promising uses of geocoded news.

Roden also demonstrates what RSS feeds, Twitter, and other lifestreams might look like in the living room. The concept seems poised to go mainstream this year or next with Yahoo’s widgets for web-enabled televisions, though who knows if people really want their friends’ tweets to share the screen with Lost. (There’s evidence they do.)

It’s important to note that the R&D group doesn’t expect people will mount four screens on the wall of their living room, awesome as that would be. Their best guess is that consumers will segment their widescreen TVs in the style of cable news channels. A lot of innovation will be required to make that a pleasant experience. My living room is a two-screen operation — three, if you count a picture frame that could be repurposed to display the latest New York Times photography — and it works pretty well, even if I can’t yet flick a Mark Bittman video over to my television.

This is the fourth installment of our five-part series on the Times R&D group. Tomorrow we’ll conclude with their stabs at the future of advertising. A transcript of today’s video is after the jump. Keep reading »

At The New York Times, preparing for a future across all platforms

By Zachary M. Seward

Here’s the second of our videos from inside the research and development lab at The New York Times Co., where they’re envisioning how news will be consumed in two to ten years. (You can catch up on the series here.) Some of the goodies you’ll notice: a Samsung tablet, an iPhone, a Sony Bravia TV, and an application called CustomTimes that they’ve developed to work on all three devices.

The R&D group is obsessed with the ability to seamlessly transition among web-enabled gadgets. They’re not convinced that the future will land on a single, multipurpose contraption — like some sort of Kindle meets Chumby meets Minority Report. Instead, they predict consumers will connect to the Internet through their cars, on their televisions, over mobile networks, and in traditional browsers, while expecting those devices to interact and sync with each other.

Nick Bilton, the group’s design integration editor who narrated yesterday’s video, and Michael Young, the lead creative technologist who stars in today’s installment, won a major hacking event in 2007 with their startup Shifd (pronounced “shift”), which is an attempt to achieve some of that cloud-like portability. And the same philosophy is evident in the way they’ve conceived CustomTimes (which, it should be noted, is more a proof of concept than a product on its way to the marketplace).

One term I didn’t hear in our visit to the R&D lab last week was “platform agnostic,” a concept once championed by Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and deputy managing editor Jonathan Landman to describe how the newspaper would offer its content on any medium desired by the audience, from e-readers to television.

That philosophy remains intact, I think, but the phrase’s meaning is worth some thought. One of the more pointed passages in Mark Bowden’s recent Vanity Fair profile of Sulzberger was a quote from Tom Rosenstiel, director of Pew’s Project for Excellence in Journalism:

When I first heard Arthur talk about being platform agnostic, I knew he was trying to suggest that he was not stuck in a newspaper mind-set. But I thought there were two problems with that language. One is, agnostics are people who don’t—who aren’t sure what they believe in. That’s the first problem. And the second problem is, in practice, there is no such thing as being platform agnostic. You actually have to choose which platform you work on first, which one comes first. [...] Platform agnostic means that all the online companies are going to zoom past you, because they’re going to exploit that technology while you’re sitting there thinking, Well, we don’t care which platform we put it on. You need to exploit the technology of each platform. You need to be, in fact, not platform agnostic but platform orthodox.

There’s no doubt that the R&D group — and probably Sulzberger, too — agrees with Rosentiel’s point. (In tomorrow’s video, you’ll see one way that they’re attempting to repackage multimedia content for different platforms.) But I think “platform orthodox” is a useful perspective from which to assess their work: How well does CustomTimes prepare for our gadget-juggling future?

A full transcript of today’s video is after the jump. Keep reading »