They are not bad at this. You are bad at understanding it.
I work with this stuff, and I do understand it. Some of my colleagues are actively participating in USB-IF workgroups, although not the ones responsible for naming end user facing things. They come to me for advice when those other workgroups changed some names retroactively again and we need to make sure we are still backwards compatible with things that rely on those names and that we are not confusing our customers more than necessary.
That is why I am very confident in claiming those naming schemes are bad.
"don’t even bother learning it" is my advice for normal end users, and I do stand by it.
But the names are not hard if you bother to learn them.
Never said it is hard.
It is more complex than it needs to be.
It is internally inconsistent.
Names get changed retroactively with new spec releases.
None of that is hard to learn, just not worth the effort.
Yes, it absolutely is USB-IF's fault that they are not even trying to enforce some semblance of consistency and sanity among adopters. They do have the power to say "no ~~soup~~ certification for you" to manufacturers not following the rules, but they don't use it anywhere near aggressively enough. And that includes not making rules that are strict enough in the first place.