US dataswitch to UK
Web and Digital Interface Designers
balancing and adjusting gameplay experiences to ensure the critical and commercial success of the product, consulting with multiple stakeholders to define requirements and implement online features and determining supplementary virtual features. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
This job is splitting in two: developing and maintaining design level documentation is work AI now does quickly and cheaply, and guiding design discussions between development teams is work it can't touch.
Which half fills your week decides your exposure. The ledger below shows which rows you can move toward.
Your week, as this page understands it
Design digital user interfaces or websites. Develop and test layouts, interfaces, functionality, and navigation menus to ensure compatibility and usability across browsers or devices. May use web framework applications as well as client-side code and processes. May evaluate web design following web and accessibility standards, and may analyze web use metrics and optimize websites for marketability and search engine ranking. May design and test interfaces that facilitate the human-computer interaction and maximize the usability of digital devices, websites, and software with a focus on aesthetics and design. May create graphics used in websites and manage website content and links. The job title says “web” or “digital interface designers”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: guiding design discussions between development teams. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But web and digital interface designers is not one task. It is 54 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is guiding design discussions between development teams, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 51%
- changing shape
- 27%
- staying human
- 22%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 60 out of 100 (55–66 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, across 54 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for web and digital interface designers is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 18 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
30 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Developing and maintaining design level documentation
This is reading one thing and writing another: design level documentation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop and maintain design level documentation, including mechanics, guidelines, and mission outlines.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Design documentation follows familiar structures, so tools draft and maintain it well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Creating and managing documentation, production schedules, prototyping goals and communication plans in collaboration with production staff
This is reading one thing and writing another: documentation, production schedules, prototyping goals and communication plans in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Create and manage documentation, production schedules, prototyping goals, and communication plans in collaboration with production staff.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Schedules, documentation and communication plans are standard project outputs tools draft quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Documenting all aspects of formal game design
This is reading one thing and writing another: all aspects of formal game design in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Document all aspects of formal game design, using mock-up screenshots, sample menu layouts, gameplay flowcharts, and other graphical devices.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up the full design with screenshots, layouts and flowcharts is documentation work tools handle capably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing or supervising the writing of game text and dialogue
This is reading one thing and writing another: the writing of game text in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Write or supervise the writing of game text and dialogue.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Game text and dialogue drafts come out well, with writers shaping voice and consistency.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
14 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Devising missions, challenges or puzzles to be encountered in game play
The software now makes the first pass at missions, challenges or puzzles, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Devise missions, challenges, or puzzles to be encountered in game play.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Tools generate plenty of mission and puzzle ideas, but making them fun in the actual game takes a designer.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Creating core game features, including storylines, role-play mechanics and character biographies for a new video game or game franchise
The software now makes the first pass at core game features, including storylines, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Create core game features, including storylines, role-play mechanics, and character biographies for a new video game or game franchise.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Storylines and character backgrounds come out well as drafts, though the distinctive ideas still come from people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Creating gameplay prototypes for presentation to creative and technical staff and management
The software now makes the first pass at gameplay prototypes, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Create gameplay prototypes for presentation to creative and technical staff and management.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Playable prototypes need real build work and design instinct, though tools speed up parts of it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
10 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Balancing and adjusting gameplay experiences to ensure the critical and commercial success of the product
The ratings behind this row put gameplay experiences well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Balance and adjust gameplay experiences to ensure the critical and commercial success of the product.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 33 out of 100 (26–40 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the five ratings behind the score, with no single dominant reason.
The rating behind it: Balancing how a game feels depends on playtesting instinct that tools cannot yet judge from data alone.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Soliciting, obtaining and integrating feedback from design and technical staff into original game design
The value here is that a specific person handles feedback and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Solicit, obtain, and integrate feedback from design and technical staff into original game design.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Gathering and folding in colleagues' feedback depends on working relationships inside the studio.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting regular design reviews throughout the game development process
The value here is that a specific person handles regular design reviews throughout the game development process and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct regular design reviews throughout the game development process.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Design reviews are live discussions where reading colleagues' reactions matters as much as the notes produced.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 44 tasks
Identifying or maintaining links to and from other Web sites and checking links to ensure proper functioning
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: links in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Identify or maintain links to and from other Web sites and check links to ensure proper functioning.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 100 out of 100 (96–100 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checking and maintaining links is exactly the kind of repetitive checking software does faster and more reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Registering Web sites with search engines to increase Web site traffic
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: web sites in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Register Web sites with search engines to increase Web site traffic.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 100 out of 100 (96–100 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Submitting a site to search engines is a short, well-documented technical step that software completes on its own.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Creating searchable indices for Web page content
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: searchable indices in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Create searchable indices for Web page content.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Building a search index over site content is a standard scripted job that software already does end to end.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Documenting technical factors, server load, bandwidth, database performance and browser and device types
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: technical factors, server load, bandwidth in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Document technical factors such as server load, bandwidth, database performance, and browser and device types.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Server load, bandwidth and device data comes from monitoring tools that already write this up automatically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing and editing technical documentation for digital interface products and designs
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: technical documentation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Write and edit technical documentation for digital interface products and designs, such as user manuals, testing protocols, and reports.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Manuals, testing protocols and reports are exactly the kind of writing tools now produce to a publishable standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing and documenting style guidelines for Web site content
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: style guidelines in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Develop and document style guidelines for Web site content.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up style rules is well-trodden ground for tools; deciding the house look still takes a designer.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Developing Web site maps, application models, image templates or page templates that meet project goals, user needs or industry standards
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: web site maps, application models in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Develop Web site maps, application models, image templates, or page templates that meet project goals, user needs, or industry standards.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Site maps and templates are standard outputs, though matching them to real project goals still needs review.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Developing, validating
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: test routines in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Develop, validate, and document test routines and schedules to ensure that test cases mimic external interfaces and address all browser and device types.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Test routines and browser coverage schedules are well documented and largely generated by tools already.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Researching, documenting, rate or selecting alternatives for Web architecture or technologies
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: rate in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Research, document, rate, or select alternatives for Web architecture or technologies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Comparing web technologies is well-documented research that tools summarize well, with the final pick left to the team.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Responding to user email inquiries
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: user email inquiries in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Respond to user email inquiries, or set up automated systems to send responses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 79 out of 100 (75–83 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Answering user email and setting up automatic replies is a task assistants already handle end to end.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Creating gameplay test plans for internal and external test groups
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: gameplay test plans in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Create gameplay test plans for internal and external test groups.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Test plans follow documented structures that software drafts well from the game's own specification.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Creating Web models or prototypes that include physical
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: web models in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Create Web models or prototypes that include physical, interface, logical, or data models.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Prototypes and interface models are quick for software to produce, with a developer refining the result.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing, building or maintaining Web sites, using authoring or scripting languages
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: web sites in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Design, build, or maintain Web sites, using authoring or scripting languages, content creation tools, management tools, and digital media.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Code assistants now build and maintain typical sites to a standard a developer accepts after a review pass.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing or implementing procedures for ongoing Web site revision
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Develop or implement procedures for ongoing Web site revision.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing a repeatable revision process is procedure drafting from how the site already works.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing system interaction or sequence diagrams
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: system interaction in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Develop system interaction or sequence diagrams.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Diagrams follow standard notation and can be generated from a description, but the project details come from the team.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying problems uncovered by testing or customer feedback
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: problems in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Identify problems uncovered by testing or customer feedback, and correct problems or refer problems to appropriate personnel for correction.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Spotting and fixing issues from test results or user reports suits tools well, with tricky ones passed on.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing or directing Web site updates
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: web site updates in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Perform or direct Web site updates.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Routine site updates are exactly the kind of change coding tools make reliably with a quick check.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing Web site tests according to planned schedules
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: web site tests in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Perform Web site tests according to planned schedules, or after any Web site or product revision.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Site testing is already largely automated, with scripts run on a schedule after each change.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing clear, detailed descriptions of Web site specifications, such as product features, activities, software, communication protocols, programming languages and operating systems software and hardware
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: clear, detailed descriptions of web site specifications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Provide clear, detailed descriptions of Web site specifications, such as product features, activities, software, communication protocols, programming languages, and operating systems software and hardware.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up specifications clearly is a strong fit for tools, though the technical choices come from the project.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Selecting programming languages, design tools or applications
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: languages, design tools or applications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Select programming languages, design tools, or applications.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software can compare tools and languages well, though the final pick depends on what the team already knows.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing supporting code for Web applications or Web sites
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: code in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Write supporting code for Web applications or Web sites.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing supporting code is the clearest case of work coding assistants now produce to a reviewable standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Incorporating technical considerations into Web site design plans
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: technical considerations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Incorporate technical considerations into Web site design plans, such as budgets, equipment, performance requirements, or legal issues including accessibility and privacy.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Budgets, performance limits and accessibility rules are documented, though someone accountable signs off the legal side.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing test specifications to quality assurance staff
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: test specifications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Provide test specifications to quality assurance staff.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing test specifications for quality assurance staff is clear, structured documentation that tools produce well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Communicating with network personnel or Web site hosting agencies to address hardware or software issues affecting Web sites
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: network personnel in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Communicate with network personnel or Web site hosting agencies to address hardware or software issues affecting Web sites.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Raising and chasing hosting or network issues is largely templated correspondence software can draft and track.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting user research to determine design requirements and analyze user feedback to improve design quality
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: user research in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Conduct user research to determine design requirements and analyze user feedback to improve design quality.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Surveys, interviews and feedback analysis run remotely, and tools are good at spotting patterns in what users say.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing and executing pre-production activities
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: pre-production activities in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Direct and execute pre-production activities, such as creating moodboards or storyboards and establishing a project timeline.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Moodboards, storyboards and timelines can be drafted quickly by tools, with the team steering the direction.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing or evaluating competitive products
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at competitive products, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Review or evaluate competitive products, film, music, television, and other art forms to generate new game design ideas.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Tools can review competing games and other media, though turning that into an original idea remains a person's work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing two-dimensional concept layouts or three-dimensional mock-ups
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at two-dimensional concept layouts, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare two-dimensional concept layouts or three-dimensional mock-ups.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Concept layouts and mock-ups can be generated as starting points, though the visual judgment stays human.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing and revising initial game sketches using two- and three-dimensional graphical design software
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at initial game sketches, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare and revise initial game sketches using two- and three-dimensional graphical design software.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Sketching tools help, but shaping the look of a game still runs on a designer's eye.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Determining supplementary virtual features, such as currency, item catalog, menu design and audio direction
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at supplementary virtual features, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Determine supplementary virtual features, such as currency, item catalog, menu design, and audio direction.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Currency, catalog and menu choices can be drafted from common patterns, though the game's economy needs designer judgment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Researching, and applying innovativing solutions for product design
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at solutions, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Research and apply innovative solutions for product design, visuals, and user experience to meet the needs of individual Web development projects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Genuinely new design and experience ideas still come from people, even if tools supply plenty of options to react to.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Keeping abreast of game design technology and techniques
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at abreast of game design technology, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Keep abreast of game design technology and techniques, industry trends, or audience interests, reactions, and needs by reviewing current literature, talking with colleagues, participating in educational programs, attending meetings or workshops, or participating in professional organizations or conferences.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 55 out of 100 (48–62 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Tools summarize trends and audience reaction well, but staying genuinely current is something a designer does.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Collaborating with web development professionals
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at web development professionals, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Collaborate with web development professionals, such as front-end or back-end developers, to complete the full scope of Web development projects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 55 out of 100 (48–62 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Working alongside front-end and back-end developers needs constant give and take, though the coding side is well within reach of tools.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Developing new visual design concepts and modifying concepts based on stakeholder feedback
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at new visual design concepts, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Develop new visual design concepts and modify concepts based on stakeholder feedback.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Fresh visual concepts and reacting to stakeholder taste stay largely human, though tools produce plenty of starting points.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining understanding of current Web technologies or programming practices through continuing education
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at current web technologies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Maintain understanding of current Web technologies or programming practices through continuing education, reading, or participation in professional conferences, workshops, or groups.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 41 out of 100 (34–48 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software can summarize new tools and practices, but a developer still has to actually learn and apply them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Consulting with multiple stakeholders to define requirements and implement online features
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at multiple stakeholders, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Consult with multiple stakeholders to define requirements and implement online features.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Pinning down requirements with several stakeholders takes negotiation as much as writing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collaborating with management or users to develop e-commerce strategies and to integrate these strategies with Web sites
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at management, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Collaborate with management or users to develop e-commerce strategies and to integrate these strategies with Web sites.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: AI can draft e-commerce strategy options, but agreeing them with managers and users still takes back-and-forth judgment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing feedback to designers and other colleagues regarding game design features
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles feedback and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide feedback to designers and other colleagues regarding game design features.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Useful feedback to colleagues depends on trust and shared context built inside the team.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing feedback to production staff regarding technical game qualities or adherence to original design
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles feedback and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide feedback to production staff regarding technical game qualities or adherence to original design.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Telling production staff where the game drifts from the vision relies on a shared understanding built with people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conferring with management or development teams to prioritize needs
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles management and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Confer with management or development teams to prioritize needs, resolve conflicts, develop content criteria, or choose solutions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (31–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Agreeing priorities and settling disagreements between teams depends on people talking to each other.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Overseeing gameplay testing to ensure intended gaming experience and game adherence to original vision
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put gameplay well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Oversee gameplay testing to ensure intended gaming experience and game adherence to original vision.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Judging whether the game feels right still needs people playing it and reacting.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Presenting new game design concepts to management and technical colleagues
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles new game design concepts and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Present new game design concepts to management and technical colleagues, including artists, animators, and programmers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Slides are easy to prepare, but pitching a concept to colleagues is done in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Guiding design discussions between development teams
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles design discussions and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Guide design discussions between development teams.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Steering a live discussion between development teams is something a person in the room does.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collaborating with artists to achieve appropriate visual style
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles artists and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Collaborate with artists to achieve appropriate visual style.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Landing on a visual style with artists is a back-and-forth creative relationship.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $104,000a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 113,330in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: design level documentation in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: developing and maintaining design level documentation and creating and managing documentation, production schedules. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what design discussions run on: someone specific doing it and standing behind it. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
The exposed part of your job is the biggest part, and I am not going to dress that up: developing and maintaining design level documentation is work today's tools do quickly and cheaply, and that is not coming back.
So, given all that: 51% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 27% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 22% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 54 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
What you have that the software does not is guiding design discussions between development teams, plus the years of knowing when something looks wrong before you can say why. That is the raw material for everything below.
This week: one thing
Sit on the machine's side of the desk. Pick one real piece of design level documentation you would normally do yourself, let whatever software you already have take the first pass at it, and then go through what it produced and write down every single thing it got wrong. One evening this week. Do not fix anything yet. Just catch it.
- What you end up holding
- a written list of the machine’s mistakes, in your handwriting
- How long it takes
- an evening, or an hour if you pick one job rather than one client
If you can’t run software on your employer’s or your clients’ data: Do the same hunt on paper. Take one printed piece of design level documentation, work through it the way you always do, and mark every point where you made a call rather than followed a rule. Same evening, same list, nothing to log into and nobody to ask permission from. That list is the same artifact: it is the judgment written down.
Over the next 90 days
Change one sentence about what you do. Not on a CV. Out loud, to whoever pays you. From “my job is developing and maintaining design level documentation” to “I check what the software does and tell you what it means.” Your error list from this week is what makes that sentence true instead of a claim, so use it: show it once, to one person, inside the next ninety days. Same skills, priced as judgment rather than as typing.
Over the next 12 months
Walk toward the end of this job that answers for things, and get it recognised. Pick the one part of guiding design discussions between development teams you are already best at, and spend the year making it formal: a qualification, a named responsibility, a specialism people ask for by name. Price it honestly: that is evenings, it is months rather than weeks, and the seats are competitive because everyone in your position is looking at the same door. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to web and digital interface designers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was web developers: only about 11% of its durable work is work you already do, it is under the same pressure this job is and it pays 10.9% less. I am not going to pretend that is comfortable news: 51% of your own task list is already in the top exposure band. But the answer on this evidence is not a sideways jump into a job with the same problem. It is to walk toward the end of this one that answers for things. “balance and adjust gameplay experiences to ensure the critical and commercial success…” is the part that stays with a person, and spending a year getting formally recognised for it beats a standing start somewhere else.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Web Developers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “confer with management or development teams to prioritize needs, resolve conflicts, develop content criteria, or choose…”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 11% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 11% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 89% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (74/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $92,650 against your $104,000, 10.9% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Computer Occupations, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already keep abreast of game design technology and techniques, industry trends, or audience interests…, and their equivalent is to keep abreast of developments in document management technologies and techniques by reviewing current…. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 70% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (66/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it.
Computer Network Architects
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already keep abreast of game design technology and techniques, industry trends, or audience interests…, and their equivalent is to keep abreast of changes in industry practices and emerging telecommunications technology by reviewing…. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 51% of its task weight, across 54 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
“It’s too late for me to become something else”
You are not starting from zero, and the page shows why: guiding design discussions between development teams is work the software cannot do and you already do it. The move above is a repricing of what you know, not a new career. Nobody who has just left college has that.
“I should learn to code”
Almost certainly not. The value in your job is moving toward checking, deciding and answering for the output, not toward writing the software. A weekend of Python will not change your position; the error list from this week will.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Cyber security professionals is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Cyber security professionals, IT quality and testing professionals and Database administrators and web content technicians. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for web / digital interface designers, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 51% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for web / digital interface designers. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for web / digital interface designers launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Web and Digital Interface Designers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 54 official task statements scored for Web and Digital Interface Designers (United States, SOC 15-1255), 51% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 60 out of 100 (range 55–66, band: high). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Web and Digital Interface Designers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Identify or maintain links to and from other Web sites and check links to ensure proper functioning” (100/100, very high); “Register Web sites with search engines to increase Web site traffic” (100/100, very high); “Create searchable indices for Web page content” (93/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Web and Digital Interface Designers” stay human?
- About 22% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Collaborate with artists to achieve appropriate visual style” (23/100, low); “Guide design discussions between development teams” (23/100, low); “Present new game design concepts to management and technical colleagues, including artists, animators, and programmers” (30/100, low). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Web and Digital Interface Designers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 51% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 22% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Web and Digital Interface Designers calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 54 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 18 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt-with-imputed)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.