I'm an artist and amateur web designer.

On my portfolio website, I've grouped my work into projects. Most of my projects contain few (20 or less) images, so I just display them in full size and let the visitor scroll (example) because this is how I prefer to browse other artist's work as well.

For projects containing more images, I use thumbnails which link to the full-sized images, because, again, when I browse other artist's portfolios, if there are lots of images on a page it's kinda cumbersome to load. 

Recently I wrote some jQuery to implement a lightbox effect (modal window overlay) so when you click on a thumbnail, the full-sized image appears (example).

My main reasons for implementing this:


it's much more presentable than having a direct link to the image,
which is what I used to do
if the visitor shares the image on something like tumblr or
Pinterest, the link back will be to the project page instead of a
direct link to the image
if the visitor wants to right-click on the thumbnails to load several
images in several new browser tabs/windows, they can still do so (the
lightbox is triggered on left click)


I did not include a close button because it seems like more work for the visitor to have to look for a close button, than to simply click anywhere to close the lightbox (which is what I did).

What are your thoughts regarding lightbox interface for this particular use?
The goal would be the best way to showcase visual art/design work, and the target audience would be, well, anyone who wants to view the work. The display method, in this case a lightbox interface, should be efficient, useable, and presentable (it should highlight, not detract from, the work).


Question: Has Jesus ever directly said he would die as a voluntary sacrafice? If so, wasn't it double sense?
Answer: 
  But I suspect these are only later interpretations. Has Jesus himself ever said his dead is a sacrifice?


Jesus's death is placed in the context of a Passover (Seder) meal, and since the meal is literally a liturgy, it must be completed or the participants defy the commandment of God. 

Anyway, Four cups must be drunk to complete the ceremony, and the Eucharistic cup Christ passed around at table was what the Jews call "the cup of blessings," the third cup. However, any devote Jewish person would realize that the meal is then cut short, with Christ going to the Garden to pray while forgoing the fourth cup, meaning the meal was not completed. However, later on, in the Garden, Christ prays about "letting this cup pass from me," which still indicates that Christ has the fourth cup in mind.

He is captured, and eventually sentenced, and again we hear "Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God," another reference to the fourth cup. Notice how he refuses to drink the wine while he still hasn't suffered.

After his agonizing pain on the Cross, right before His death, Christ is given some sour wine, which He does drink "And someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink (Mark 15)" which St. John, an eyewitness, describes in more detail:


  A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the wine, he said, “It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit (John 19:29-30)


In all Gospel accounts, Jesus drank the wine and then died. That wine was the fourth cup which finished the Pasover meal.

And what do Jews call the fourth cup? The cup of Salvation, meaning that the Cruxifiction was a part of the Last Supper which ended in the cup of Salvation, bitter in more ways than one.

St. Mark and St. Matthew then go on to point out: "And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom" immediately after, which indicates that the relationship between God and Man was healed, He forgave Man, as forgiveness is the only way to continue a relationship. Thus, the Cruxifiction was for forgiveness.

In other words, all four Gospels teach that the Cruxifiction was for the forgiveness of sins. It is not a later interpretation (as if that is a bad thing anyway :shrug:).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Note:* I assume Markian priority in this article, although I disagree with it.

Note:** I also assume GJohn was written by an eyewitness. If you wish to believe otherwise (as the OP seems to implicitly believe), and instead see it as written by later Christians adding theological detail, that is fine. The point is that the Synoptics indicate the same events, although GJohn most clearly expresses the theological meaning, which are no less absent in the Synoptics, although they are not as clear. In a sense, one can see GJohn as a Gospel written to flush out more of the theological meanings of the other Gospels (which might be why GJohn is traditionally symbolized by an eagle, the bird that flies higher and sees farther than all other animals). Simply stated, the Synoptics, as well as the Old Testement, are the raw material which GJohn builds his theology.