I've never head this referred to as a UI/UX engineer. You seem to have just described a web developer. If you're developing "large-scale apps" then you're definitely doing more than UI/UX, so why call it UI/UX engineering?
The JavaScript skills in question include the ability to write clean code, write unit tests and use client-side frameworks like Angular or React.
Having an eye for design and usability is a plus, but not the focus.
1. a frontend, which is a Single Page App, shipped as a blob of JS;
2. a backend, which is a big fat set of services in random languages.
The people who create the frontend are traditionally thought of as web developers, but "UI/UX engineer" is perhaps closer: they're engineering a program, yes, but it's ultimately a program entirely to serve the purpose of being a nice UI/UX in front of an API.
I think the most on-target name for this role would probably be "client-app developer." The client happens to be web-based, but that doesn't much matter. It's still a client that consumes your service.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with evolving the term "front end developer" into "UI/UX engineer". My problem is that the OP is talking about replacing "web developer" with "UI/UX" engineer. Web developer traditionaly includes backend engineers who aren't only working on UI.
Web developer is a broad term. UI/UX Engineer is a specific term. Yes many people specialize in frontend or backend, but both of them are still web developers. Calling both of them UI/UX Engineers is dumb.
Engineer simply means it's more code than Photoshop.
I prefer UI Developer.
One day there will no doubt be real engineering accrediations, like peng for software, but we aren't there today.
I am proud to call myself a programmer or a web developer. Our work is hard, it's dynamic, and it has the potential to impact many lives. But we should be sensitive to the engineering community as lives depend on their work and calculations not falling apart.
On the whole engineering vs developing thing I think that dev is still in its infancy. Professional certs that are really meaningful and indicate some level of knowledge on various dev subjects would be a good baseline in the future, IMO. In Canada, to be a P.Eng. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_en...) one must, by law, be licensed.
From that link:
> The regulation and licensing of engineers are accomplished through a self-governing body that is given the power to license and discipline professional engineers, as well as regulate the practice of the professional engineers...
> A self-governing body's prime purpose is to protect the public.
Also, this discussion is a bit like asking why you can be a Data "Scientist" without a Ph.D. and without peer-reviewed publications. In reality, most people understand the difference between a scientist working in neurobiology or particle physics, and a data scientist working on ads (a competent data scientist working on a private non-profit in epidemiology might actually be harder to classify, though). So, same goes as to the difference between a civil engineer and a software engineer.
Edit: If anything, I know a few UX designers that reject the engineer label, but only because it makes the process sound more mechanical compared to designer (in my understanding, both are about discovering and satisfying constrains, but constrains are more strongly defined and more externally enforced in engineering than design, even for software).
When I think of "engineer", I think of P.Eng., and the licensing/accreditation that goes along with it has useful connotations to it. So I'd say while some of us devs might be doing engineering type of work, and may even be eligible for something like an P.Eng. license in their place of residence, they simply are not engineers, because they are not licensed.
On the other side of that coin, I don't believe there is ever such a hard-and-fast rule that is applied to the word "scientist". As such, I don't believe that Ph.D. or getting published is required - what's required is instead to be someone who practices science.
> Is someone who makes electronic circuits, but is mostly self-taught, an engineer?
If he's accredited by that country's authority on the matter (e.g. the Engineering Council in the UK), then yes. If not, no.
Around here, you're only allowed to call yourself an engineer if you have a degree from a technical university.
Sure, the company can give you any title they want (I mean, if they're allowed to give obnoxious titles like Senior JavaScript Ninja or whatever, surely they can call someone an engineer, too), but from a legal standpoint, that's null, with all the consequences that follow (e.g. legal documents that require an engineer's signature have to be signed by someone that the state agrees is an engineer, regardless of what the company thinks).
Edit: FWIW, while I'm legally allowed to claim that glorious title (my diploma says "Instrumentation Engineering"), I tend to avoid it, too. My job has always been to program computers, and if I'll be able to do that until I retire, I will. Consequently, I see no reason to call myself anything other than a programmer. My employers disagree for paperwork reasons, so the paperwork they do says otherwise, but "programmer" is what I want everyone to call me. There is very little of true value to be found in a name; people who chase the title of engineer, rather than the engineering education, are missing the point.
I can't say I've ever seen dev jobs advertised as 'software engineer' positions here before. It's always 'software developer'.