> http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-desktop/2005-December/000056.html

Yeah I remember seeing a mock-up of the dialog on this list. Just couldn't
believe it would make it "as is" in Ubuntu !

> > 1) it's too large
> > 2) the icons are too large
 
> Why is that a problem ? 

Well, it simply doesn't look consistent with the rest of the desktop.

> It is only a few pixels larger than the previous one,

The window you mean ? Dunno, but it sure looks too large. I am just talking of
the visual impact/effect it did on me, not actual dimensions ;-)
I think it's the fact that the buttons aren't outlined, so they don't "occupy"
teh space like a normal button would.

> and fits prefectly on all screens. When it comes to dialogs, is it necessarily
> "the smaller the better" ?

Of course not, but here it looked more like "the larger the better" ;-)

> > > 3) they are too wide spread
> > Considering there is no confirmation dialog after you click one of these
> buttons, we should make it hard for one to "miss" his click. 

Well, if you put normal / outlined buttons, one would easily see where the
frontier is between two buttons..  SEEING the active area of a button... THAT
would make it easier to select the right button ;-)


> Is it so exhausting to move your mouse a few more pixels ? :-p 

It's not exhausting, but it feels weird that the GUI rules suddenly change when
I am about to log-out. This creates surprise, doubt, which in turn can make the
user make a mistake, despite that's what you were trying to avoid in the first
place I understand ;-)
In short : UI consistency is the best way to help the user be confident in using
the GUI, meaning less errors and "stress".

> You can still use the accelerators, by the way.

Oops, I think you mistook me for a power user ! I am just a very normal user who
simply was very surprised to see that this new dialog looked so inconsistent
with his desktop, nothing more.... nothing less ;-)

> > > 4) they look like pics, not buttons, it's all very "flat" and it's not obvious
> > they are clickable.
> 
> Well, I guess the user might think that these pretty pictures must be here for
> something... The firefox toolbar icons look just the same (no relief, but relief
> appears when you hover. I think this looks nice). 

Precisely, Firefox is harldy a Gnome application, definitely not sometihng to
take as reference point for Gnome desktop integration !

> What would you suggest ?

I was happy when I read that the dialog would be revisited, but at the same
time, I didn't think it needed much change.
For example, if just use the same dialog, but replace the radio button with
large buttons ("Normal"/Gnome buttons... ;-), that would be a good start, maybe
even sufficient.


> > 5) the top 3 icons, at least their colours, really clash, they really don't
> > integrate with Gnome at all. They look out of place, very Win XP /KDE/Child-ish.
> > The one thing that really clashes, is the bright green of the first two icons.
> > The lower 3 icons are much better, they look much cleaner and refined, and the
> > colours are in tune with Gnome.
> 
> All these icons follow the tango guidelines : http://tango-project.org/ 

I think that's precicely the problem ! ;-) 
Gnome doesn't use Tango icons, and rightly so, since  99.5% of the gnome icons
look beautiful.
Tango icons look like a cross between KDE and Gnome icons. they look weird and
look out of place in Gnome. They give a very toy/child-ish look to Gnome, i
truins the whole GUI ;-)

> Needless to say, you are welcome to design new, more suitable icons if you like :)

I am not a artist, so can't do that. But I don't think the log-out dialog needs
icons anyway. The old one didn't have any IIRC, and as a normal user, I hardly
felt something was missing at all. No icons make the dialog look cleaner anyway.
Also, if you only put text inside big button, it will stand out and force the
user to read it carefully, as this will be the only element of information. This
will make sure the user knows what he is doing, which as you righlty said, is
important here ;-) 
At any rate, better no icons than disturbing icons, I think. Putting icons for
the sake of it doesn't help usability I think, it only detracts the user from
the important things: what the buttons do.
If really the specs for Dapper is to put icons no matter what, then with so many
lovely Gnome icons, there must be some that can be used.
We could use the nice "Computer" icon as base icon, then layout a kind of emblem
in the bottom right corner of it, to distinguish between sleep/hibernate/restart
etc. 
( your 4 round-ish icons could be re-used for that purpose ).

I didn't mean to start a "war", and ultimately it doesn't matter as who knows
what Ubuntu will look like in two years, but I genuinely was "shocked" by the
design of this dialog that I felt I had to voice my concerns, again, as a normal
user, and nothing more (and nothing less, since Gnome is user focused).
If really Ubuntu is set on this design, then fine, I will survive
(waiting/hoping for a probable redesign in a year or two ;-), but if there is
room for suggestions, maybe I can try to make mock-up using the suggestions I
made here, although it will take time since I am no graphics artist and I am not
very confident with Gimp and Glade. 
As a user, I really don't care what it looks exactly like. As a user, the only
thing I expected is that the dialog looked consistent with the rest of the
desktop, because GUI consistency is so important, both for usability and just
plain good looks ! :o)