Olio, nooo I cant believe someone here sees a problem and can demonstrate a level of professionalism.
I have to admit that Michael and the community managed to convince me that the interface is EXACTLY the way it should be.

About your red-marks:
Of course... all of that is so obvious... I can continue the way you started and go on and on.. Come on, lets be honest. The interface is not just slightly bad or slightly childish like someone sad earlier. The attempt for establishing visual relationship between the graphic elements is barely recognizable. I don't blame Michael for not having qualification in this area and even less the hobbyist community. They are what they are. But frankly I am too a little surprised of the attitude he demonstrated.

Another thing is, small changes here and there wont help, only serious intervention could save that thing. But this is not an open-source project and providing Michael with our random suggestions is very wrong way to do it. Please, you and eventually others - don't do that. At least out of respect for the professions we represent. If some day, somehow Michael sees the obvious, he will contract with someone to work hard and put the GUI in shape.

As for the others who don't believe the look of the interface repelled me to the point I decided not to use it – ok, I'll satisfy your curiosity with some details:

Some years ago, like most of my colleagues I used Studio Tools for nurbs surfacing and sketching. I remember we used to think that the interface is kind of cool :) compared to the other software back than. Finally I end up using it for illustrations only, because I switched to the good old Rhino. It is hard to say something good for its interface. It feels and looks ancient. It would require tremendous amount of courage for McNeel guys to redesign it. I continued to spend good amount of time working with my Cintiq and I couldn't believe there is no 3D modeler optimized for tablet use. It looked so natural and the advantages was so obvious to me. I am seldom enthusiastic about software, but when I heard about the first public release of MOI I was so eager to try it. The web site and the interface stroke me with their amateur look, but I knew MOI is one man show. Michael just started it and probably didn't have the financial courage to look for qualified assistance for the graphics, so I didn't even mention that. I even install it and did same small things with it. I wanted to see how it feels and it felt good, but the look.. oh..:) when I looked at my work surrounded by the funny GUI I just couldn't continue. So I decided to give MOI some time to mature and check it back later. Now, since V2 is ready I felt like mentioning that to Michael. Well... now we all know that the problem is not in the money for hiring some one to fix it. And I have another good reason to stay away of it.

By the way lately I have the heretic idea to use polygon modeler for my concept studies and I picked Modo for that. The reason is the overall professionalism Luxology demonstrates, but also for the descent level of styling of their GUI, website, manual and so on. It is true that the market of polygon modelers is over-saturated and a website/GUI like the one of MOI will mean nothing less than suicide. But I think we really should give them the credit because the problem is not that much in the money, it is about vision, management and visual culture.