The question was put on hold by five members of the community voting for the custom close reason
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a well-studied problem in user interface design, and can be better answered elsewhere
The edit you made following its hold placed the question in the "re-open" queue where members who have the re-open vote privilege can consider whether the edit is sufficient to address the close reason. Five re-open votes will re-open a question, although while it's in this queue, three "Leave closed" votes are sufficient to remove the question from the queue. Your question received three "Leave closed" votes and no "re-open" votes, although it's still possible to get them.
- Your question received an answer, and your commented query was also answered
- Other comments on the question indicated that and here wasn't actually a "Logical AND" at all, or even if it was it's still the normal use of the word. It can only be construed in one way.
- Because of that, how and is presented is a user-interface question. You even reinforced this line of reasoning by including a screenshot of your user interface.
- Your edit didn't address the closure reason, which stated it was a well-studied problem in user interface design. Your edit ignored this completely, when it should have made the question explicitly fall into the ELU remit (or "even more explicitly", depending on your point of view).
The last point is probably why the review result was a 3–0 defeat.
The reason that the question wasn't simply migrated to User Experience is that the question was first asked there in 2010 and already has many duplicates listed in the "Linked" sidebar. There would be no real point in adding another.
Even if you disagree that your use of and here is not the normal use of and to join two attributes, there really is no other word to do that. So presentation of the idea to make that understandable falls into the User Interface camp.
And, had you improved the question by including examples justifying the opening assertion that and and or are frequently confused, it may have helped; or it might even have strengthened the case that it is ultimately a user interface question.