Jason Kottke is a Web Designer for B-Swing, Inc. in Minneapolis, MN. In his spare time, he produces the award-winning Osil8 Web site as well as the more recent kottke.org. In his remaining spare time (about two hours a week), he likes watching movies and sleeping, preferably not at the same time.

INTERVIEW

JASON KOTTKE

OLR: Your site is designed as if it is a stage that has a surrounding curtain to bring the viewer to focus on the content.

Jason: I definitely designed the interface for kottke. org with the focus on the content. On a lot of sites, many different kinds of information need to be balanced, but on my site, the stuff that people are there to get is the text in the white column. That's it. There's no logo, no photos that people need to see, none of that stuff.

I've never really thought about it in the context of a stage and curtain, but I suppose that works. I see it as more of a lens effect...the yellow focuses down into a white area. I've had other comment that it looks as if the white area is raised, as if it were on a platform above the yellow area. Whichever metaphor you want to use for it, the effect, I think, is the same.

OLR: You talk a about movies on your site kottke.org. Have you seen the Univisium site by Vittorio Storaro? Storaro is trying to standardize the 2:1 aspect ratio for movies and HDTV formats. I wonder what the effect of being maybe being a foot away from the screen is for viewing a movie? Do you think filmmakers should consider that and when they are making short films decide if they are for theatrical or website distribution?

Jason: I definitely think that is an issue. On most computer screens today, the resolution is pretty bad by comparison with print, photography, and film. Sure, photography and film get grainy, but you can't pick out individual pixels like you can on a computer screen (for instance, the dot on this "i" is only one pixel square). You take film, digitize it, and view it from a foot away, you're going to be seeing detail that you wouldn't see on the screen in a theater.

You might think that more detail is better, but not always. In a theater, you can clearly see that vase sitting on a table in the background because it's physically 2 feet high on the movie screen. On a computer screen, that same vase is only 15 pixels high and you can't really tell what the heck it is. I've watched DVD movies fullscreen on a computer, and they look pretty bad compared to seeing them in a theater.

OLR: What do you account for the immediacy of the look of the cam? Is it something in the quality of the picture or the idea that you are seeing someone you are getting to know that makes it more real?

Jason: The quality of the shot has a lot to do with it, I think. Film is high quality and never live. Video is poorer quality than film, but still pretty good ... and it's almost never live. A building security cam is relatively poor quality, but is often live. People pick up on those quality differences and relate them to the immediacy of what they are watching. A webcam is poor quality and therefor "more live."

I also think that the interactive nature of the typical webcam contributes to the immediacy as well. Someone can check in on my cam and send me an email telling me to straighten up or smile. A couple of minutes later, they can watch as I read their mail and smile ... or flip them off for telling me what to do. :) Either way, there's a feedback there that you just don't get with movies or TV.