If you're genuinely asking... the yes option. But that is indeed a shitty ass UI.
My answer comes from the "thumb print" effect - that radial shadow pattern is supposed to remind the user of their finger partially blocking the light on an illuminated button.
I think the radial shadow pattern is actually supposed to evoke the edges of the hollow in which the button is depressed, but otherwise I agree with you 100%.
The one that always gets me is GNOME's screen sharing portal.
There is this outline around the "Application Window" tab which makes it seem selected. I use this UI multiple times a week and I need to pause for a sec every single time. I always think "I want to share a window", "oh it is already selected" then stare at the monitors for a while before I realize why I can't understand what I am looking at.
If they did the exact opposite of this, I think it would look ok. If I was trying to fix this, I would probably just swap the styles of the selected and deselected states. Maybe it's a miscommunication between designers and implementers, causing the meanings to be swapped?
I don't think it is that simple. I think that outline is about the "focus". So if I press enter it will activate that tab, if I press tab it will move the focus to the "Entire Screen" tab.
The UX issue is that there are two concepts of focus in this UI. There is "which tab is active" and "what UI element will pressing enter activate". These two are not sufficiently differentiated which leads to a confusing experience.
Or maybe there can just be no keyboard focus indicator by default, but that may be annoying for keyboard power users. But this is generally how it works on the web, you have to press tab once to move keyboard focus to the first interactive element.
I think we need to know what the UI looks like before a selection has been made, or what it looks like when the curser is over each option. The 'interface' part is lost by a single screen shot.
When you're not using a pointer interface (mouse or, awkwardly, wii-mote) it's extremely rare for the UI to ever be in a neutral (nothing selected) state. Since you'd always be navigating relatively (go right, down, up, or left) instead of absolutely (go to pixel 753x1034) there always must be some point of reference for that movement.
Once in a blue moon you'll see a menu where your initial selected position is something like "before the first item" so when you press right in a horizontal selector you actually move from nothing selected to the first thing selected and it's almost always a terrible UX. If you set up such an interface you're accepting that every action will require an extra useless click and that users entering the state freshly (i.e. you reach this screen then walk away and your partner is the next person to see it) will be confused about where in the action they are. You're also accepting responsibility for what will happen if the user confirms without ever actually making a selection which will usually require some (again, utterly unnecessary) dialog box asking the user to try again but this time actually select an action.
Relative navigation having a neutral/unselected state is almost always a mistake.
No selection was made by me. It showed up with one of them being white and one being black. Can't remember which side was which. But keep pressing left on the remote and they just cycle back and forth. This is on a bluray player.