Not sure about the car analogy (set up in this way) and where this takes us or this case.
TBH, here it sound a little like a departure/sideway away from accepting UX is a thing to be adressed. Or, just lower expectations/ambitions w/o any obvious need.
In terms of “good enough”: I see your point about the icon flagging and labelling. This one is helpful per se. (Though it would probably helful for others to understand which labelling mechanism you are exactly referring to here.)
But then that was not my point.
It was about about creating annotations, and understanding as “ordinary user”– via good UI/UX architecture – what is going on. That is: being guided/helped by the UI instead of puzzling pieces together (as distributed as all the micro-actions around annotation-files are ATM).
All that assuming annotations are as central or powerful as they are discussed here. And that therefore it´s worth discussing how it works currently, and how it could be improved.
Indeed a good interface should be like a map for orientation and finding/comprehending the functional space of an app, and different functional “sub-spaces” (workflows) of it.
That is very obviously not the case with the whole “annotation”-file functionality as discussed above.
I do not see any particular reason not to discuss ways to improve and point out problems for (some) users. Or to leave UI/UX out of the equation. It´s not like a moral ostracism – it´s simply pointing out potentials for improvement. And I do not know what could possibly be wrong about that. 