[cek]

"To build a great UX, one has to step back and think about what’s most important, try to come up with the most simple and shortest path to get there, build, analyze what works and why(not), measure, test, rinse, and repeat."

This is true, but in my experience, the best UX people are even more excellent at figuring out what is NOT important and getting rid of it (or not investing any time in those things at all).

Also, just as the "learn to program" meme does not, and can not, apply to everyone, "be a UX person" does not apply to everyone. A significant part of what makes great UX comes from the right-brain and some of us simply are physiologically weaker there.

When I shifted my customer focus from developers to consumers in 1999, after 10+ years of building products, I made a conscious decision to become a "UX guy". I spent YEARS working on that skillset. I even had some pretty strong successes.

But I still suck, compared to my UX idols. I like to think I know good UX when I see it, and I can guide others to do it, but when I'm on my own I struggle.

[peetahb]

This is true, but in my experience, the best UX people are even more excellent at figuring out what is NOT important and getting rid of it (or not investing any time in those things at all).

I believe that's what the OP implied when he stated most simple and shortest path to get there, simplifying the UX/UI is based on deduction, archetype development and enough experience/knowledge to start off with a barebones wireframe instead of a bloated mess. Loosely basing the method of delivering an effective UX on Occam's Razor, a philosophy that states if you base your decision on the path with the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect, that's usually the best route to take.

The most simple path is one that only relies on what's important to your goals and skips all the bloated "data" and "ideas" that would hurt the UX.

[octavecat]

To me it is the sad state of "design" in the valley that means "ux people are figuring out what is not important." To label them and give them a role implies that others in the org should not be thinking about this at all times.

everyone should be aligned, everyone should be focused on the audience they are building for and the needs of those users. that is what differentiates a stripe from a google checkout and, to be cliche, an iphone from a treo.

even the concept of having a "ux guy" means there are others in the org who are "not ux guys"

there is nobody at most of the companies who model "good ux" responsible for that "good ux"