US dataswitch to UK
Web Developers
writing supporting code for Web applications or Web sites, analyzing user needs to determine technical requirements and monitoring security system performance logs to identify problems and notify security specialists when problems occur. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
Most tasks in this job are the kind AI has learned to do: backing up files from Web sites to local directories for instant recovery in case of problems. The tasks, though, are not you.
It would be a lie to soften that, and another lie to promise a rebuilt version of this job inside this job.
So the hope here is what you already carry: the judgment you bring to management is real, and the moves below are built from it. The first step is down this page.
Your week, as this page understands it
Develop and implement websites, web applications, application databases, and interactive web interfaces. Evaluate code to ensure that it is properly structured, meets industry standards, and is compatible with browsers and devices. Optimize website performance, scalability, and server-side code and processes. May develop website infrastructure and integrate websites with other computer applications. The job title says “web developers”. The real job is the part underneath: conferring with management or development teams to prioritize needs. 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 developers is not one task. It is 29 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is conferring with management or development teams to prioritize needs, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 89%
- changing shape
- 7%
- staying human
- 4%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 74 out of 100 (69–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, across 29 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 developers 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 2026-08-05. 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.
- 17 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
26 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.
Writing supporting code for Web applications or Web sites
This is reading one thing and writing another: code in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “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.
Designing, building or maintaining Web sites, using authoring or scripting languages
This is reading one thing and writing another: web sites in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “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.
Selecting programming languages, design tools or applications
This 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 4 · CoreSource: “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.
Backing up files from Web sites to local directories for instant recovery in case of problems
This is reading one thing and writing another: files in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Back up files from Web sites to local directories for instant recovery in case of problems.” (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: Backing up site files to local storage is a scripted job that already runs without anyone doing it.
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.
Performing or directing Web site updates
This 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 4 · CoreSource: “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.
Evaluating code to ensure that it is valid
This is reading one thing and writing another: code in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate code to ensure that it is valid, is properly structured, meets industry standards, and is compatible with browsers, devices, or operating systems.” (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: Checking code against standards and browser compatibility is well documented and largely automated 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.
Performing Web site tests according to planned schedules
This 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 4 · CoreSource: “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.
Changing shape
2 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.
Maintaining understanding of current Web technologies or programming practices through continuing education
The 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 4 · CoreSource: “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.
Collaborating with management or users to develop e-commerce strategies and to integrate these strategies with Web sites
The 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 4 · CoreSource: “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.
Staying human
1 taskTasks 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.
Conferring with management or development teams to prioritize needs
The value here is that a specific person handles management and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “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.
Show the other 19 tasks
Renewing domain name registrations
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: domain name registrations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Renew domain name registrations.” (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: Renewing a domain is an administrative step that automatic renewal already handles.
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.
Establishing appropriate server directory trees
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: appropriate server directory trees in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Establish appropriate server directory trees.” (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: Setting up server directory structures follows standard patterns a script can create.
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 test plans, testing procedures or testing results
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: test plans, testing procedures or testing results in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Document test plans, testing procedures, or test results.” (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: Writing up test plans, procedures and results is documentation software produces 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 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 3 · CoreSource: “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.
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 3 · SupplementalSource: “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.
Designing and implementing Web site security measures
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: web site security measures 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 and implement Web site security measures, such as firewalls and message encryption.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Standard security measures like firewalls and encryption are well documented, so software configures them with a 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.
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 4 · CoreSource: “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.
Developing databases that support Web applications and Web sites
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: databases in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop databases that support Web applications and 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: Designing and building a database behind a site is well-trodden work coding tools handle with 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 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 3 · CoreSource: “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.
Recommending and implementing performance improvements
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: performance improvements in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Recommend and implement performance improvements.” (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 spot and apply common performance fixes, though the measurements come from the specific site.
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 3 · CoreSource: “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.
Monitoring security system performance logs to identify problems and notify security specialists when problems occur
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: security system performance logs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Monitor security system performance logs to identify problems and notify security specialists when problems occur.” (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: Log monitoring and alerting tools already flag most security problems automatically.
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 3 · CoreSource: “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.
Evaluating or recommending server hardware or software
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: server hardware in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Evaluate or recommend server hardware or software.” (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: Comparing hardware and software options works from published specifications and prices.
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 3 · SupplementalSource: “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.
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, and legal issues including accessibility and privacy.” (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: Folding budget, performance, accessibility and privacy requirements into a plan is written analysis software drafts 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.
Analyzing user needs to determine technical requirements
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: user needs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze user needs to determine technical requirements.” (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: Turning described user needs into technical requirements is drafting work software does well with a 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 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 4 · CoreSource: “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.
Installing and configuring hypertext transfer protocol
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: hypertext transfer protocol in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Install and configure hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) servers and associated operating systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 62 out of 100 (55–69 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: Server setup is well documented and scriptable, though physical hardware occasionally needs someone present.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $92,650a 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
- 70,190in 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: web sites in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: backing up files from Web sites to local directories for instant recovery in case of problems and writing supporting code for Web applications or Web sites. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what management runs 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: backing up files from Web sites to local directories for instant recovery in case of problems is work today's tools do quickly and cheaply, and that is not coming back.
So, given all that: 89% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 7% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 4% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 29 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
What you have that the software does not is conferring with management or development teams to prioritize needs, 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 web sites 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 web sites, 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 backing up files from Web sites to local directories for instant recovery in case of problems” 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 conferring with management or development teams to prioritize needs 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 developers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was web and digital interface designers: only about 7% of its durable work is work you already do and it is under the same pressure this job is. I am not going to pretend that is comfortable news: 89% 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. “maintain understanding of current Web technologies or programming practices through continuing education…” 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 and Digital Interface Designers
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 7% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% 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: 51% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (60/100 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 evaluate or recommend server hardware or software, and their equivalent is to design, build, or operate equipment configuration prototypes. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Computer Occupations, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already maintain understanding of current Web technologies or programming practices through continuing education, reading…, and their equivalent is to monitor Web developments through continuing education, reading, or participation in professional conferences, workshops…. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% 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.
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: 89% of its task weight, across 29 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: conferring with management or development teams to prioritize needs 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 Database administrators and web content technicians 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
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Database administrators and web content technicians. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
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 developers, 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 89% 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 developers. 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 developers 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 Developers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 29 official task statements scored for Web Developers (United States, SOC 15-1254), 89% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 74 out of 100 (range 69–79, 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 Developers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Back up files from Web sites to local directories for instant recovery in case of problems” (93/100, very high); “Renew domain name registrations” (93/100, very high); “Establish appropriate server directory trees” (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 Developers” stay human?
- About 4% 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: “Confer with management or development teams to prioritize needs, resolve conflicts, develop content criteria, or choose solutions” (35/100, low); “Collaborate with management or users to develop e-commerce strategies and to integrate these strategies with Web sites” (40/100, partial); “Maintain understanding of current Web technologies or programming practices through continuing education, reading, or participation in professional conferenc…” (41/100, partial). 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 Developers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 89% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 4% 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 Developers 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 29 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.
- 17 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.