Rather than trying to answer this here I'll point to a great definition of what UX design actually is. Hint, it's not "laying out a page" or "painting the picture".
If you can do all of the above and you are a rock star developer, my friend, you are a rare breed.
Why not go straight to code?
Iterating through conceptual ideas via sketches, wireframes, research etc to get an experience correct is a million times more effective and efficient than iterating through it in code.
None of what I wrote contradicts that description of UX. I did not imply that I thought it was laying out a page or painting the picture.
Also I did not mean to imply that I thought that going straight to code was the best approach. But you can honestly do a fair amount of that sketching/wireframing etc. in your head and with verbal descriptions, and then after a one or two iterations of that or actual mockups I think you would gain the most from a real system.
Anyway, based on that description, I will definitely start putting UX design on my resume, because I have already incorporated most of the substantial points made there.
Also, in regards to http://uxdesign.com/ux-defined, I have never in my life had so much smoke blown up my ass in the process of an ostensibly (partially) technical discussion.
I am definitely going to have to start practicing this UX design stuff, in case there is actually something more to learn, and because it looks like people are using a lot of bullshit to justify getting paid a lot more to not have to do the real work/problem solving (coding).
> [..] I have never in my life had so much smoke blown up my ass in the process of an ostensibly (partially) technical discussion.
Very harsh words but I'm afraid I have to agree. That article doesn't really tell you what UX design is. Back on university I attended an interactive systems class, which was very focused on UI and UX design. I found it to be rather vague and everything but precise in definition. I believe UX is a very blown term these days anyway, just as I believe "design" is an inflated term.
What I want is a precise definition of good UX, that doesn't feel like "make it idiot-proof".
Disclaimer: I make no claims whatsoever to be good at UX design. Actually, I couldn't care less. I'm one of those weird code monkeys who favour function over everything else. Maybe that's what UNIX made me to be ;)
EDIT: sorry that's a bit flippant, but you just sound overly dismissive of a specialized field. Nobody disputes that a good user experience is important. This is why people specialize in it. Now, just taking you at your word that you do in fact design and code amazing experiences- obviously most developers are not as highly skilled as you. If I want to build a good product, it's going to be very hard to find someone as amazingly talented as you. I am left with the choice of hiring a good developer and a good designer and building a good product. Sounds good to me. This is why the profession exists.
If I can find a UX designer who is also skilled at visual design (more common than one who is also a full fledged developer), the product will also look good. Also, are you good at researching, setting up user testing, and designing marketing material and other graphics as well? How do you find the time? you must be a true god among men
http://uxdesign.com/ux-defined
If you can do all of the above and you are a rock star developer, my friend, you are a rare breed.
Why not go straight to code? Iterating through conceptual ideas via sketches, wireframes, research etc to get an experience correct is a million times more effective and efficient than iterating through it in code.