Security UX for Military Geospatial Operations

Project Snapshot:

Role: Senior Product Designer

Users: US Air Force, 5-6 personas

Scope: Workflow architecture, interaction design, geospatial UX, developer tools

Constraints: Restricted visibility, permissions based actions, changing data, time sensitive decisions

Research: 14 interviews, field research, operator simulations, academic military exercise

TL;DR:

Geospatial decision support for 5 to 6 military operator personas working with incomplete, restricted, and rapidly changing information.

I designed role based workflows for verification, prioritization, assignment, escalation, recovery, and action. The work made ownership, access boundaries, supporting evidence, workflow state, and next actions explicit without requiring operators to leave the map context.

I also designed developer facing workflows and engineering ready specifications for the tools and infrastructure supporting the operating experience.

Table of Contents:

About the visuals: All interface examples, scenarios, names, locations, identifiers, and data are fictional reconstructions created to demonstrate the design approach. They do not represent the actual product.

Problem:

Operators worked from a shared geospatial interface containing dense, time sensitive information.

Signals and recommendations were visible, but priority, relationships, ownership, workflow state, and next actions were not consistently clear. Operators had to determine what required attention, who was responsible, which evidence supported an action, and how to move through verification, escalation, recovery, and reassessment without losing map context.

Visual: The existing workflow required operators to interpret priority, ownership, and next actions across various states.

Click to make image larger.

Simplifying visual data:

The interface contained multiple alert and icon types of events, missions, and alerts. I organized the information by type and severity, then grouped related activities into zones. These zones allowed operators to review connected visuals without interpreting their meaning.

Operators also needed evidence and context to decide on the next steps. Each zone surfaced operational context, icons, severity alerts, source information, and assessment details. This kept critical information visible while allowing deeper evidence to remain available when needed..

Map redesign:

• Grouped icons by type and severity so operators could scan the map quickly.

• Color and icon treatment showed different kinds of activity and indicated relative severity.

• Hover pop ups showed all relevant data for quick analysis.

Click to make image larger.

Initial state:

Icons and alerts were visible, but priority and relationships were unclear.

Click to make image larger.

Redesigning map context:

• The left panel connected each zone’s stated priority with supporting evidence, related visual artifacts, and assessment context.

• Critical information remained visible, while deeper evidence was available by clicking “Read More.”

Click to make image larger.

Ownership & workflow state:

The user’s workflow became clear once ownership and project state were explicit.

Operators could assign work to the appropriate role, evaluate the proper data, and see current status and available actions without leaving the map.

How people used the product in context is outlined below.

Click to make image larger.

How it works:

F2T2EA Dynamic Targeting Model

  • Find: Identify activity that requires attention.

  • Fix: Verify what it is, where it is, and whether there is enough confidence (verified data) to continue.

  • Track: Maintain current information as the situation changes.

  • Target: Prioritize and review the information needed to determine the appropriate response.

  • Engage: Assign responsibility and carry out the approved action.

  • Assess: Review the result and determine whether reassessment or additional action is needed.

Click to make image larger.

Creating developer tools:

Besides the primary geospatial product, I worked on developer tools and infrastructure workflows used by engineering teams supporting the project.

My role was translating technical requirements and system behavior into clearer interaction patterns, information architecture, and engineering-ready specifications. This work helped connect the operator experience to the tools and infrastructure required to support it.

Before & after:

Before

• Recommendations, AI alerts, and icons appeared in shared space without a clear owner.

• Verification, escalation, and reassessment steps were not legible from the active screen.

• Operators inferred authority, next steps, and recovery options.

• Reassessment required extra coordination because prior steps and user responsibility were not explicit’

Click to make image larger.

After

• Recommendations were routed to the appropriate person.

• Critical information surfaced first, with evidence available on by clicking “Read More.”

• Each recommendation made workflow states, responsible actors, and next steps explicit.

• Operators could verify, escalate, hand off, or loop back without restarting or losing map context.

• Reassessment improved because prior actions and project ownership were visible within the workflow.

Click to make image larger.

Outcome:

The redesign made priority, ownership, workflow state, and next actions clearer across the primary operating experience.

The design direction was validated through 14 interviews, field research, operator simulations, and an academic military exercise. Quantitative operational metrics are classified.

Validation: 5 to 6 operator personas · 14 interviews · field research · operator simulations · military research exercise

How I made a difference:

I shifted the product from a cluttered map to UI that supported decisions. I connected verification, prioritization, assignment, escalation, recovery, and available actions into a clearer workflow. I did it for 5 to 6 operator personas, with explicit ownership, access boundaries, and system state.

Citation: