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 information, permissions-based actions, changing data, and 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 map contained different types of events, missions, and alerts, but it was difficult to tell what needed attention. I grouped icons by type and severity and organized related activity into zones so operators could understand how information was connected.

Each zone showed priority, source information, supporting evidence, and assessment details. Important information stayed visible, while additional details were available when needed. Operators could review the evidence behind a recommendation without leaving the map.

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:

I made responsibility, workflow status, and available actions clear within the interface. Operators could see who was responsible for a recommendation, what information had been verified, and what needed to happen next.

They could assign work, escalate issues, review evidence, or reassess a decision without losing their place on the map.

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 had to work out who was responsible, what actions were permitted, and what to do next.

• Critical information appeared first, with supporting evidence available through "Read More."

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 it easier for operators to identify priorities, review supporting evidence, understand responsibilities, and determine what to do next.

Verification, assignment, escalation, and reassessment were connected within the map interface, reducing the need to move between screens or work out the next step independently.

The design was informed and evaluated 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 · academic military exercise

How I made a difference:

I changed the experience from a map that primarily displayed information into one that supported decisions. I connected alerts, supporting evidence, ownership, and available actions so operators could understand what needed attention and move through their workflows more clearly.

Citation: