You should definitely account for these things when designing a form.
You have stated yourself:
a trickier interaction while obfuscating the fact a field can still be interacted with in a normal way
If such is indeed the case, then there's a strong bad UX case to argue.
To answer your question directly, if usability is the prime concern (like the speed users take to fill a form) than you should pick the most appropriate pattern for each task. But sometimes other variables are accounted for in UX design, which may reduce (in some cases immediate) usability.
Form Follows Function
A leading design concept is "Form Follows Function". That is that the form is second to function, and that the function of designs should not be compromised by the form.
What may collide with this is the aesthetic-usability bias - more aesthetic designs appear more usable. This has been proven in empirical tests, although the research is still ongoing.
The key is to account to both principles when designing UX - prioritise function, and apply aesthetic design so long it does not reduce functionality.
The switches on launchlist are an example of function follows form. To begin with, the component used is a switch (you toggle between options, rather than slide between them).
Switches are preferred over checkboxes when the choice is not clear-cut yes/no true/false. For instance, a choice such as high/medium will call for a switch.
One pain point in switches is that users often find it hard to determine which position means what. Lauchlist introduced colours to signify this (no colour for no, with colour for yes), but this brings about an accessibility issue with colour-blind people. So there's also a v indicator for the yes option. You could argue that this is a lot of design noise compared to the established checkbox pattern.
Another pain point, as you have mentioned, is that some users drag the handle (like on a switch) rather than just clicking. It is also unclear whether I click anywhere or just on the option I want. So there are various issues with this type solution.
Implemented properly, switches should have the options outside the switch area, with both options visible; but this again increases noise compared to a yes/no checkbox.
A Good Design is about the Best Compromise, not the Right Design
Sometimes well designed products incorporate these non-optimal patterns (pinterest is another example). The design committee may have chosen to prioritised form over functionality, and these sort of tradeoffs can sometimes be justified. There are examples of much worst design tradeoffs - like Google's decision in Gmail to only reveal the full set of tools on hover (noise/clarity tradeoff).
Usability may also be traded of with flexibility - you design more flexible products, but not without paying the reduced-usability price. Or as minimalism is associated with expensive brands, many of these brands compromise functionality in favour of minimalistic design.
This is just to say that design guidelines are guidelines, and not set in stone. So these type of decisions are slightly more complex than simple right/wrong answers.