A Survey of Geospatial-Temporal Visualizations for Military Operations

G. Walsh

1 a

, N. S. Andersen

1 b

, N. Stoianov

2 c

and S. J

anicke

1 d

Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

Department of Computing, Bulgarian Defence Institute, Soﬁa, Bulgaria

Keywords:

Military Operations, Command and Control, Situational Awareness, Geospatial-Temporal Visualization

Abstract:

European defense funding has surpassed 200 billion euros per year for the ﬁrst time, with a renewed strategic

interest in creating technological innovations that aid military cooperation, such as comprehensive decision-

support systems. Overcoming the many challenges associated with the research and development of such

military technologies presents an excellent opportunity for the visualization community’s contributions in the

domain, as there is ample scope for applied research. No other recent surveys examine the use and design

of Information Visualization (IV) and Visual Analytics (VA) tools in the military domain. As such, this sur-

vey’s primary interest is to investigate and assess IV and VA tools’ functionality and integration into military

decision-support systems, speciﬁcally focusing on geospatial-temporal visualization aspects. Considering this

objective, this survey systematically identiﬁes and discusses suitable visualization solutions and the beneﬁt

they may offer to military decision-support systems through the lens of the Military Operations Process. This

results in a domain-speciﬁc design space for analyzing various existing and relevant military products. This

survey’s outcome and main contribution is thus the formulation of a design space and analysis of existing

military products. This leads to identifying gaps, opportunities, and guidelines for where geospatial-temporal

visualizations in military decision-support systems can enhance military commanders’ decision-making capa-

bilities and ability to act.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has escalated the risk

of a spillover war with a NATO member, resulting in

18 European countries increasing military spending

in 2022. The European Defence Agency has stated,

”co-operation must now become the norm” (Quinn,

2022), calling for the increased need to develop

emerging military technological capabilities as a nec-

essary intervening variable to handle both conven-

tional and unconventional future warfare (Leuprecht,

2019). To counter these modern threats, many armed

forces have re-emphasized and re-prioritized com-

patibility and interoperability across military equip-

ment, with a desire to create common, open-source,

integrated, and secure military technology platforms

which easily enable cross-platform interactions. Fur-

ther development of such emerging military tech-

nologies requires overcoming a myriad of challenges

posed by the research, development, and implementa-

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1095-5471

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6926-1397

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4953-4172

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9353-5212

tion of such technologies. Yet, it can be an opportu-

nity for the visualization community to contribute to

the abundance of research projects in this domain.

Examples of such related challenges are many,

as described in (O’Hanlon, 2018), and include the

development of software for overcoming the threat

of cyber-warfare by devising new novel tools which

make it easier to monitor, analyze, detect, and re-

spond to unauthorized activity, the implementation of

artiﬁcial intelligence (e.g., for route-planning analy-

sis (Lazarowska, 2022)), the possibility of analyzing

multi-source military intelligence data using natural

language processing (Hecking et al., 2011), and the

development of augmented reality (AR) technologies

(Le Roux, 2010) to improve commanders’ and sol-

diers’ situational awareness. Despite the many chal-

lenges this domain is confronted with, innovations

in defensive technologies can be worthwhile pursuits

as they can beneﬁt and permeate many domains as

well as the general public. An example of such a de-

fensive technology that evolved into universal use is

the internet which began as a modest research exper-

iment to link three early packet networks in an open-

architecture framework (Kahn et al., 1997).

Walsh, G., Andersen, N., Stoianov, N. and Jänicke, S.

A Survey of Geospatial-Temporal Visualizations for Military Operations.

DOI: 10.5220/0011902500003417

In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2023) - Volume 3: IVAPP, pages

115-129

ISBN: 978-989-758-634-7; ISSN: 2184-4321

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

115

In this context, there is also a particular contem-

porary interest in supporting the functionality of new

and existing military decision-support systems by in-

tegrating Information Visualizations (IVs) and Visual

Analytics (VA) tools with advanced Graphical User

Interfaces (GUIs), producing Visual User Interfaces

(VUIs) that can support and improve well-informed

decision-making capabilities (Tardy, 2020).

The interest in developing such systems is preva-

lent as military operations are intrinsically complex

and dynamic by nature. As such, they call for visual-

izations implemented in an equally sophisticated and

advanced manner to support well-informed decision-

making. In this survey, we examine and discuss

geospatial-temporal visualization solutions and the

beneﬁt they may offer to military operations. In this

context, we aim to identify prospective areas of fu-

ture visualization research, including elaborating on

the research prospects of innovative technologies such

as AR, micro-visualizations, and 4D representation of

geospatial-temporal data for military purposes.

No other recent surveys examine IVs and VA tools

used in the military domain, with only Gouin and Ev-

dokiou (2004) exploring the area. This survey thus

aims to provide an analysis of recent visualizations

used in the military domain to derive guidelines that

could be used in the design process of visualizations

and VA tools supporting military operations, relat-

ing visualizations to the Military Operations Process

(NATO Standardization Ofﬁce (NSO), 2019b).

To outline the contents of the survey, we describe

the scope and survey methodology in Section 1.1 to

narrow the focus. Then, in Section 2, we introduce

the relevant military theory and highlight the need

for suitable geospatial-temporal visualizations in suc-

cessfully carrying out military operations.

In Section 3, we emphasize how domain-speciﬁc

constraints and military standards affect the use and

implementation of visualizations in the military do-

main. Following this, in Section 4, we describe our

design space subsequently used for analyzing twenty

military products, as shown in Table 1. Then, in Sec-

tion 5, we discuss patterns such as design and imple-

mentation gaps and opportunities identiﬁed based on

our analysis of military products. Finally, we con-

clude our survey ﬁndings in Section 6.

1.1 Scope

The related works examined were limited to those of

an unclassiﬁed nature to promote accessibility and

reproduction. This survey assesses academic liter-

ature on military operations, situational awareness,

knowledge and insight generation, human-computer

interaction, and visualization techniques. This theory

is then framed based on state-of-the-art examples in

current decision-support systems from product manu-

als/videos/images, design guides, military standards,

tech reports, and knowledge of military operations.

Survey Methodology. We searched for related

products and publications within the given survey

scope. We utilized Google Scholar to browse visu-

alization, military theory, situational awareness, and

knowledge and insight generation using relevant key-

words like ”military visualization” or ”geospatial-

temporal visualization” to gather academic refer-

ences. Reviewing each paper’s related works and sec-

tions individually, we traced every cited reference and

checked if it ﬁtted our survey scope. In addition,

we used Google Search to ﬁnd twenty relevant mili-

tary products that applied visualization and were suit-

able to be examined in our survey. We also browsed

military standards, manuals, and tech reports through

NATO’s Standardization Ofﬁce’s archive

and mili-

tary standards aggregator EverySpec

2 BACKGROUND

Military organizations, commanders, and subordi-

nates have put forward higher requirements for accu-

rate and prompt information transfer through various

IVs, VA tools, and GUIs during the planning, execu-

tion, and assessment of military operations.

Military operations are coordinated actions con-

ducted under dynamic and uncertain conditions to

achieve objectives for a particular purpose. These ac-

tions involve various tasks carried out by different cat-

egories of military personnel, which we identify as:

Commanders. A category of military personnel who

command and control military forces and who are

involved in making decisions to achieve goals that

ultimately place military forces in the desired end

state. Commanders work at a strategic level.

Military Forces. The military personnel carrying out

the commanders’ orders and instructions. Mil-

itary forces ”on the ground” work at a tactical

level.

Intelligence data that military organizations can

gather primarily relates to time (a temporal dimen-

sion) and space (spatial dimensions) along with actors

(e.g., people) and objects (e.g., facilities and equip-

ment) and the events that they generate.

https://nso.nato.int/nso/nsdd/main/standards

http://everyspec.com/search result.php

IVAPP 2023 - 14th International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications

116

Figure 1: A depiction of how visualization can be used

in the cyclic Military Operations Process to increase situ-

ational awareness, decision-making, and ability to act by

improving commanders’ cognitive perception.

The execution of military operations requires situ-

ational awareness at all levels, from the strategic to the

tactical. A general deﬁnition of situational awareness

is provided by Vidulich et al. (1994) which states situ-

ational awareness is the ”continuous extraction of en-

vironmental information, integration of this informa-

tion with previous knowledge to form a coherent men-

tal picture, and the use of that picture in directing fur-

ther perception and anticipating future events”. As

such, employment of suitable geospatial-temporal vi-

sualizations is critical as a means of achieving the

goals as set out in the the military operations process.

We deﬁne the military operations process as con-

sisting of central command and control activities per-

formed during military operations, namely planning,

execution, and assessment, as depicted in Figure 1

(Department of the Army (DA), 2019). The military

operations process can be complex and vary depend-

ing on the operations’ scale, scope and context. Fur-

thermore, the different phases of the operations pro-

cess typically overlap and recur as circumstances de-

mand. However, at all times, commanders drive the

operations process, by applying critical and creative

thinking and building and maintaining situational un-

derstanding by encouraging collaboration and dia-

logue. Each phase of the operations process consists

of a chain of high-level tasks, each with a different

emphasis on information visualization and interaction

requirements. Therefore, we separate the phases to

highlight each phase’s prominent theme to more eas-

ily discuss the various requirements and visualization

techniques that may be appropriate. The phases and

the themes of each, are described as follows:

1 Planning of the operation according to known and

established goals and objectives. In the planning

phase, emphasis is placed on the interaction with

static data (all data known at the current point in

time) through IVs that relate to the representation

and simulation of geospatial-temporal data asso-

ciated with the conception of military operations.

2 Execution of the operation by carrying out

planned actions. In the execution phase, the ac-

centuation of IVs used is placed on those which

support the monitoring of dynamic (new incom-

ing real-time) data, such as, information regarding

moving geospatial-temporal objects and stream-

ing time-series data. Furthermore, the execution

phase also relies on the effective communication

of initial orders and information from a comman-

der at a strategic level to subordinates at a lower

tactical level and vice versa.

3 Assessment of the operation, along with report-

ing and documentation for future use and analysis.

The assessment phase is predominately concerned

with IVs depicting insights derived from static

and dynamic data, such as, completing goals,

identifying trends, and providing reﬂections on

military operations. These all feed into the next

iteration of the military operations process.

Visualization & Military Operations. Military

operations require VUIs implemented in a sophisti-

cated manner to reduce cognitive load, promote well-

informed decision-making and provide constant sit-

uational awareness. Proper VUIs facilitate and as-

sist military commanders in successfully carrying out

and correctly perceiving numerous high-level tasks

such as collaboration, communication, interoperabil-

ity, reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisi-

tion while carrying out military operations. VUIs sup-

port the success of such high-level tasks by allowing

actions (Munzner, 2014) in relation to the military op-

erations process (NSO, 2019b; DA, 2019).

Visualization at the Strategic Level. Decision-

support systems support military operations. In this

context, Command and Control (C2) systems

are a

particular type of decision-support system that em-

body the operations process and relay a Common Op-

erational Picture (COP) to various categories of mili-

tary personnel.

Many derivative terms exist and emphasize different

aspects, uses, and subdomains of C2. The abbreviations

associated with these terms are numerous. We thus ﬁnd it

sufﬁcient to use C2 as a catch-all term.

A Survey of Geospatial-Temporal Visualizations for Military Operations

117

Commanders in a command center maintain an

overview by consuming the information processed

and managed by the C2 system. Commanders con-

sume the information to drive the operations process

through direct manipulation and interaction with the

information managed by the C2 system. VUIs used in

this setting operate at the strategic level and are used

by personnel in a remote site (e.g., a command cen-

ter). Such VUIs facilitate the coordination and com-

munication of information to subordinates at a lower

tactical level.

Visualization at the Tactical Level. VUIs used

at the tactical level are used by personnel ”on the

ground” (e.g., pilots, soldiers, divers). In this context,

physical constraints limit the possibilities concerning

what is and can be visualized and interacted with in a

VUI. The most prominent challenges associated with

VUIs at this level, relates to constraints such as space

limitations, light conditions, and limitations related to

operating the interfaces on the move (Motti, 2020).

3 DOMAIN SPECIFIC

CONSTRAINTS/STANDARDS

Many domain-speciﬁc constraints are associated with

implementing geospatial-temporal visualizations for

military purposes. The constraints that apply should

be considered when implementing visualizations in

military decision-support systems. These include en-

vironmental conditions, display size, workspaces, the

possibility to organize and arrange windows, and the

design of graphical interface components.

3.1 Environmental Constraints

The various environments within which military op-

erations occur directly limit equipment’s capabilities,

affecting how a VUI should be designed to ensure op-

timal usability. To overcome this, VUI components

need to be designed in a speciﬁc way to compen-

sate for the degraded viewing or operational condi-

tions that may exist in the environment, as shown in

Figure 2. When carrying out design within such con-

straints, it is vital to assess several factors, including:

• Display readability and force visibility

• A display should not create visual fatigue or loss

of coordination

• External environmental factors should be incorpo-

rated into design

Figure 2: Example of a synthetic vision system used in

head-mounted devices for military pilots. The system al-

lows permanent perception of the terrain and obstacles

around the aircraft, through direct and synthetic views, even

in poor visibility conditions. Source: (Lemoine et al., 2013).

• Equipment should be highly shock and vibration-

resistant (United States Navy, 1989; U.S. Depart-

ment Of Defense (DOD), 1969)

3.2 Displays

3.2.1 Large Displays & Video Walls

Current Implementations. Video walls are used at

a strategic level in military operations. They con-

sist of multiple smaller high-resolution screens (with

minimal bezel) placed together to give the impression

of one large display, typically larger than 60 inches.

Higher command usually uses them in centralized

command rooms in indoor conditions. The additional

real estate that video walls provide enables comman-

ders to view a ”whole picture” of operations as the

level of representation of IV is much greater.

Potential Implementations. It has been studied in

the visualization literature whether visualizations for

larger displays need to be fundamentally different

from visualizations on standard desktop displays and

whether basic visual design principles are different

for large displays. For example, in the work by An-

drews et al. (2011), an extensive list of visualization

design guidelines for large displays has been derived.

Based on these guidelines, the authors conclude that

designing visualization for larger displays is not sim-

ply a matter of scaling up existing visualizations or

displaying more data. Instead, they conclude that vi-

sualization designers need to adopt a more human-

centric perspective and highlight the importance of

IVAPP 2023 - 14th International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications

118

Figure 3: Example of Battlespace Visualization and Inter-

action (BVI) types illustrating augmented reality, virtual re-

ality as well as mobile and distributed, developed for visu-

alizing military operations. Source: (Boyce et al., 2022).

physical navigation in how the user will approach,

perceive, and interact with visualizations on these

larger displays. There is ample opportunity for im-

proved implementation of geospatial-temporal visual-

izations in these situations, with increasing emphasis

on human-centric design and interaction.

3.2.2 Small Displays & Alternatives

Current Implementations. Small or ”micro”-

displays are typically very small, ranging from

around 2 to 10 inches. Tactical forces ”on the

ground” typically use them to display limited but

vital information. As the screen size of these displays

is limited, so are the types and amount of visual in-

formation they can communicate to a user. Similarly,

there are alternative methods of displaying IVs during

military operations, as shown in Figure 3 where tra-

ditional visualization methods may not be sufﬁcient.

These include papers focusing on land (Ferrin, 1999)

and the sub-sea environment (Scubapro, 2022),

which have investigated the possibility of integrating

display devices into tactical helmets in the form

of head-mounted/Head-Up Displays (HUDs), to

better provide access to situational awareness tools

(Le Roux, 2010) while also limiting the effect of the

lumination of the display on the soldier or, e.g., diver.

Potential Implementations. Developments for dis-

plays in small and head-mounted devices could in-

clude improved use of micro-visualizations, Aug-

mented Reality (AR) displays, and feature tracking

for military operations. E.g., see how the use of

HUDs within the aviation industry to augment a pi-

lot’s vision could be applied to a number of military

operations, such as sub-sea operations Lemoine et al.

(2013). However, developments of such novel tech-

nologies are not without their challenges. For ex-

ample, the Integrated Visual Augmentation System

(IVAS) using AR goggles resulted in personnel suf-

fering from nausea, headaches, and eyestrain when

using the device (Harding, 2022).

3.3 Windows & Workspaces

The arrangement of a single window or a group

of windows on display can be regarded as a user’s

workspace.

• A single-window workspace is typically dis-

played on the entire screen, enabling a user to fo-

cus on a single task. As a result, a single window

workspace is particularly well-suited to smaller

screens where display real estate is constricted.

• A multi-window workspace allows multiple win-

dows to be displayed simultaneously on a single

display. The windows in the workspace can be

overlaid over one another or divided across the

display according to a user’s needs.

Typically, in decision-support systems designed

for military purposes, workspaces designed to be

used at the strategic level by commanders are multi-

window. In contrast, workspaces intended for use at

a tactical level are typically single-window applica-

tions.

3.4 Graphical Design

Text & Military Standards: As highlighted by

Parnow (2015), carefully considered typography can

convey additional information, which may improve

VUIs by modifying the visual variables associated

with typography. For example, shape (typeface, style,

weight, width), position (spacing, indentation, align-

ment, line spacing), appearance (color, texture, opac-

ity), size (scale), orientation (rotation), underlining,

strike-through, etc. can be adjusted to alter its semi-

otics (Parnow, 2015). The choice of typefaces used in

a VUI is typically standardized within military orga-

nizations to improve consistency and ensure familiar-

ity and interoperability across organizations (see, e.g.,

standard APP-56 (NSO, 2018), which specify Arial or

Times New Roman as the preferred font). However,

a VUI designer can make particular use of, e.g., char-

acter spacing, size, and capital letters for typographic

coding, headlines, captions, and labels that need spe-

cial emphasis within this context.

A Survey of Geospatial-Temporal Visualizations for Military Operations

119

Figure 4: Illustration showing a collection of symbol frames

with their associated unit dimension. A solid line is used

to denote the certainty of identiﬁcation of standard identity

and shall identify the symbol as representing friendly, hos-

tile, neutral, or unknown actors or objects. Source: NSO,

2019a.

Color & Military Standards. Color as a visual in-

dicator and signiﬁer can be used in military VUIs to

convey different yet speciﬁc meanings. For exam-

ple, within military organizations, the colors men-

tioned next typically have the following meaning:

Red means immediate or imminent danger, yellow or

amber means caution, outside normal operating lim-

its, system malfunction, or other conditions which can

produce hazards in the longer term, green means safe,

normal operating condition (Department Of Defense

Technical Architecture Framework For Information

Management (DODTAFIM), 1996). The coloring of

text or a window can furthermore be used to indicate

the classiﬁcation of the information shown in a visu-

alization in an interface (DODTAFIM, 1996).

Particular guidelines exist for military symbology.

E.g., the APP-6 standard for NATO military symbol-

ogy states that all symbol components, except the

frame ﬁll, should be the same color (NSO, 2019a).

Furthermore, symbol implementations in a VUI must

maximize the contrast between symbols and the dis-

play background to provide optimum discriminabil-

ity (Niu et al., 2020). This contrast can be provided

by using high-contrast colors for the frame, icon, and

modiﬁers depending on the background and should

be incorporated into any kind of visualizations used

in military VUIs.

Symbols & Military Standards. VUIs use a vari-

ety of simple symbols and icons to help users under-

stand the items, actions, and modes they can choose.

In general, icons in VUIs work the best when they use

familiar visual metaphors directly related to the ac-

tions they initiate or the content they represent. This

is especially relevant in small displays and micro-

visualizations (Isenberg, 2022). Furthermore, sym-

bols and icons for use in military operations in spe-

ciﬁc IV contexts have been standardized to increase

interoperability across nations.

Military symbol standards describe a structured

set of graphical symbols to display information in

military C2 systems and related applications (NSO,

2019a). The standards serve as a framework for sym-

bol construction by providing a common set of build-

ing blocks that can be used to create speciﬁc sets of

symbols appropriate to particular contexts and set-

tings, as shown in Figure 4.

A proper and robust method of selecting, con-

structing, and displaying suitable symbology is vital

to military VUIs. The correct use of symbols in mil-

itary operations yields an accurate understanding of

the operational picture by commanders. It also helps

speed up the decision-making process, as graphical

representations of objects, commands, movements,

and additional information (including alphanumeric

text and colors) can be observed and readily under-

stood faster than just text alone.

4 CLASSIFICATION

Up to this point, we described theory relating to the

military operations process and VUI design consid-

erations pertaining to domain-speciﬁc constraints and

military standards. The following section describes

relevant visualization aspects crucial in assessing mil-

itary products.

This survey is predominantly concerned with

geospatial-temporal visualizations used in military

products and the domain-speciﬁc constraints that af-

fect the visualization of objects and actors at partic-

ular points in space and time. We thus describe the

most vital aspects related to how VUIs can enhance

the performance of military operations through in-

creased human cognition of the COP by appropriately

providing information regarding the internal structure

of static and dynamic data (intel) and causal relation-

ships within it.

In Table 1, we show our design space and clas-

siﬁcation system where each column in the top row

relates to a corresponding section in this survey, with

surveyed military products listed as rows.

IVAPP 2023 - 14th International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications

120

Table 1: The tabular analysis of twenty military products according to our established design space. The design space

considers the military operations process, domain-speciﬁc constraints, and visualizations utilized. Indicates that the

product have the facilities necessary and there is an opportunity for implementation. Indicates that the product implements

the feature.

Example Software

Review Rank

Operations Process

Strategic Level

Tactical Levels

Domain Specific Constraints Visualizations

Planning Phase

Execution Phase

Assesment Phase

Environmental Constraints

Ouput Devices Input Devices

Single Window

Multi Window

Text & Military Standards

Color & Military Standards

Symbols & Military Standards

Primary Visualization

Secondary Visualization

Interaction Collaboration

Video Walls

Standard Displays

Small Displays

Alternative

Keyboard / Mouse

Touchscreen

Bezel Keys

Alternative

Map

Timelines

Alternative

Data Glyphs

Word-scale Visualization

Map-based Interactions

Visualization Linking

Information Dashboards

Focus+Context

Co-located & Synchronous

Remote & Synchronous

Co-located & Asynchronous

Remote & Asynchronous

Map Primitives

Map Overlays

2D, 3D, or 4D

Spatial Comparisons

Command and Control (C2) Systems:

Lockheed Martin Corporation (C2BMC System) 20

Battlegroup Command and Control Trainer (BC2T) 19

Boeing Joint All Domain Command and Control 17

Saab AB 9Land Battle Management System (BMS) 10 2D

General Dynamics Corporation (TAIS) 11 3D

General Dynamics Corporation (IMPACT) 9 3D

General Dynamics Corporation (GeoSuite) 8 3D

Terma Maritime Misson System 7 2D

Thales Group C2 Headquarter 12 2D

Thales Group C2 Vehicular 13 2D

L3Harris Technologies hC2 Software Suite 14 2D

L3Harris Technologies hC2 C4I Modules 15 2D

Systematic Multi-Domain C2 16 3D

Airbus Fortion Joint C2 6 3D

UMISOFT ECA 1 2D

Lockheed Martin Corporation (C4ISR) 18 2D

Handheld Underwater Devices:

Artemis Pro (with PinPoint) 3 2D

UWIS 2 2D

SonaDive RTSYS 4 2D

Dive Computer Example:

Ratio Computers 5

A Survey of Geospatial-Temporal Visualizations for Military Operations

121

Figure 5: Example of Command and Control system utiliz-

ing 3D geospatial visualizations with appropriate military

symbolgy annotations. Image source: (Richardson, 2020).

4.1 Geospatial Visualizations

Map-based Visualizations. Maps visualized in

military operations have various uses, such as com-

municating the existence and the location of spa-

tial features and entities, along with the distance be-

tween them. Map-based visualizations are used in al-

most all examples analyzed in the survey. However,

only mainly utilizing 2D maps with the exceptions of

General Dynamics, Systematic, and Airbus products.

These exceptions provide cutting-edge 3D geospatial

visualizations, using 3D maps to illustrate spatial fea-

tures such as regions populated with friendly or en-

emy forces, or critical infrastructure targets, while

communicating information regarding the variations

in terrain, the altitude of natural spatial features, and

the extent of vegetation and cover (DA, 2005; Us-

beck et al., 2015), as shown in Figure 5. Implement-

ing such visualization techniques with the addition

of a temporal component could offer signiﬁcant im-

provements in situational awareness, as maps allow

commanders in remote and military forces ”on the

ground” to know where they and their allies are lo-

cated, making it possible to make decisions accord-

ingly.

Map Primitives. We deﬁne primitives as basic ge-

ometric shapes that depict spatial features, entities,

or phenomena on visualized maps. These basic ge-

ometries can represent various things depending on

the context (

Zyszkowska, 2016). E.g., speciﬁc points

on a map, in the context of military operations, could

represent evacuation and rescue facilities or places

to avoid. Similarly, lines can be used to represent

pre-planned routes, while polygons can be used to

indicate areas of interest that should be investigated

or avoided. From our survey, all C2 systems uti-

lize map primitives, making them an essential com-

ponent of such systems. However, the usability of

map-based primitives in such systems varies drasti-

cally, with some systems seeming unintuitive to use,

such as L3Harris. Similarly, there is room for im-

provement in terms of conveying necessary informa-

tion through map primitives by exploiting the use of

visual attributes (color/hue, texture, etc.) of such

primitives overlaid on a map, according to military

standards, theory, and their associated meaning and

intent. The map primitives are typically managed and

organized in speciﬁc map overlays or layers, which

we describe next.

Map Overlays. Map overlays superimpose multi-

ple thematic maps to reveal information about spe-

ciﬁc geographic patterns of a particular subject mat-

ter (theme) in a geographic area. The ability to add

overlays to a base map is an essential function in any

Geographical Information System (GIS), as the abil-

ity to do so opens up the possibility of gaining a new

understanding of an area based on the relationship

between the different types of maps layered on top

of each other (Romeo et al., 2019). In our analysis,

all C2 systems implement such a component. Sim-

ilarly, military symbology may be incorporated into

geospatial-temporal visualizations relevant to military

operations through a map overlay, as demonstrated in

Figure 6. However, there is an opportunity to expand

the range of map overlays offered by such systems.

Additional Military Layers. Additional Military

Layers (AML) are deﬁned in NATO standard

STANAG 7170 as ”A uniﬁed range of digital geospa-

tial data products designed to satisfy the total-

ity of NATO non-navigational maritime defense re-

quirements” (NATO’s Geospatial Maritime Working

Group (GMWG), 2022). The data products are es-

sentially digital datasets organized in speciﬁc map

overlays and designed to meet the needs of several

military organizations. AML primarily provides in-

formation related to several environmental conditions

in the operating area that might affect the execution

2 of a military operation. The AML Handbook

(NATO’s GMWG, 2022) mentions many interesting

AMLs. However, for the purposes of this survey, the

most relevant military layers which could be of inter-

est to incorporate into geospatial-temporal visualiza-

tions are:

• Maritime Foundation and Facilities (MFF)

• Routes, Areas and Limits (RAL)

• Atmospheric and Metreological Climatology

(AMC)

Currently, there is much opportunity to further expand

the visual integration of such military layers in almost

IVAPP 2023 - 14th International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications

122

all of the command and control systems assessed in

this survey.

Spatial Comparisons. Many scenarios in military

operations fundamentally rely on comparisons and

representations, along with many methods of collect-

ing and simulating data to help solve these compari-

son and representation questions (Kim et al., 2017).

In particular, there is a shortcoming in visualizing

3D geospatial and time-varying 3D geospatial data.

Geospatial 3D data can typically be represented in

one of two ways: 1) ”surface-based” representation

and 2) ”volume-based” representations. Both of these

representations present data using some form of 3D

computer graphics, where facilitating accurate spatial

perception in three dimensions and addressing occlu-

sion issues are typical concerns. Javed and Elmqvist

(2012) propose ﬁve views for composite visualiza-

tions: Juxtaposition, Superimposition, Overloading,

Nesting, and Integration, which can be used in situa-

tions where a single visualization is insufﬁcient. Sim-

ilarly, there is ample opportunity for the visualization

community to integrate such methods in the domain

from our analysis of C2 systems.

4.2 Geospatial-temporal Visualization

Visualizing 2D & 3D Geospatial Data Temporally.

Due to advances in tracking technologies, tracking

individual objects in remarkable spatial and tempo-

ral detail is possible. This inherently geospatial-

temporal data availability can provide further insights

into dynamic processes and challenges that traditional

(static) geospatial analysis techniques cannot (Laube,

2014). Consequently, work has appeared address-

ing several aspects related to modeling, storing, in-

dexing, querying, and analyzing geospatial-temporal

data (Hamdi et al., 2021). In turn, the research ﬁeld

studying the mapping and visualization of geospatial-

temporal data has also received a great deal of atten-

tion. Due to the dynamic nature of the geospatial-

temporal data captured, various visualization tech-

niques have taken advantage of this by represent-

ing the data in various ways. Visualization tech-

niques utilize 2 and 3 spatial dimensions and the

possibility of showing the progress of moving ob-

jects over time in such spaces. In addition, the op-

tion of visually encoding attributes of the object via

color or texture is also accounted for temporally. As

a result, many geospatial-temporal data visualization

techniques have been developed and published An-

drienko et al. (2010); Sibolla et al. (2016); Zhu et al.

(2021). Furthermore, the existing methods have also

been studied from the perspective of the types of data

they can be applied to and the types of exploratory

tasks they can support (see Andrienko et al. (2003)).

The use and depiction of geospatial-temporal data

especially come into play in visualizing military op-

erations in terms of representing objects and actors on

a map over time. E.g., the correct application of vi-

sualization techniques in military operations through

the geospatial-temporal representation of objects and

actors can help illustrate to commanders the evolution

of such entities’ movement, which can be recorded in

terms of a trajectory that can be visualized in several

ways. E.g., simply as a ﬁxed or fading trace of the

continuous and true path of the moving entity sam-

pled at discrete points in time.

For this survey, we deﬁne 4D representations as a

time-series of 3D geospatial data. According to our

survey, state-of-the-art implementations of these vi-

sualizations appear in General Dynamics, Systematic,

and Airbus products.

Timelines. A timeline is essential for sense-making

regarding how sequences of events unfold or re-

sources are used over time. As such, they can be in-

valuable tools to command and tactical forces in the

planning, execution, and assessment 1/3 of military

operations. This is the case, as a timeline allows a user

to examine information chronologically and identify

temporal patterns and relationships. Therefore, time-

line visualizations should preferably enable the inter-

active temporal grouping of events with the possibil-

ity to further explore underlying or associated data vi-

sually and take notes (Nguyen et al., 2014). For ex-

ample, a C2 system may implement a timeline in con-

junction with cartographic maps to better understand

how sequences of events may unfold in military op-

erations. While a temporal element is used in all C2

systems surveyed, the interaction potential for such a

component is not realized in any examples analyzed.

It represents a signiﬁcant opportunity for the visual-

ization community’s input.

4.3 Visualization Interaction

In terms of interaction techniques in interactive data

visualization, a speciﬁc set of high-level interactions

is established in Munzner’s Framework and discussed

in-depth in her book ”Visualization Analysis, and De-

sign” (Munzner, 2014). This abstraction hierarchy

categorizes high-level and low-level tasks that can

be applied to the geospatial-temporal visualizations

in military operations examined in this survey. E.g.,

actions broken down into user goals of ”analyze”,

”search”, and ”query” can be applied to visualizations

used in military C2 systems.

A Survey of Geospatial-Temporal Visualizations for Military Operations

123

Figure 6: Example of Holographic Tactical Sandbox Aug-

mented Reality mission preparation system implemented

with relevant military graphics. Source: (Airbus, 2022).

Map-Based Interactions. During the planning

phase 1 of military operations, there may be a need

to manage various assets or objects on a map over a

period of time. This could be achieved through inter-

action with visualizations using geospatial-temporal

data to represent these different assets or objects. As

such, a commander creating a plan or various run-

through options should be able to edit, delete or cre-

ate/place assets using such a visualization effortlessly.

Furthermore, the interaction design of such visual-

izations should be designed such that a plan can be

edited and deleted and what-if scenarios can be read-

ily devised. During the drawing and editing of as-

sets/objects, the user must be able to undo and redo

actions. In addition, the assets should be manageable

and be allowed to be linked to a speciﬁc order. As

mentioned previously, low-level actions, such as ”se-

lect”, ”navigate”, ”arrange”, ”change”, ”ﬁlter”, and

”aggregate,” could be applied in such a manner to

achieve these high-level tasks mentioned above using

map-based 2D or 3D interactions. All such interac-

tions are implemented in C2 systems surveyed in the

paper, making them an essential element of such in-

formation systems.

In the planning phase 1 , many high-level tasks

performed by a commander are carried out in a col-

laborative setting where different people with differ-

ent roles will reason and cooperate intensively using

a collaborative digital map (Figure 6). Therefore, es-

sential assets and objects should be presented to com-

manders on this 2D or 3D geospatial-temporal visual-

ization to allow suitable actions of the planning phase

1 , such as to help devise a plan of action and predict

resource requirements. E.g. in this case, appropri-

ate actions may be the selection of military objects,

easy navigation of the map, arrangement of military

Figure 7: Image illustrating the information visualization

technique of focus plus context to present information.

Source: (H

ollt et al., 2019).

assets, adjustment of parameters, ﬁltering of objects,

and clustering of objects.

Map Navigation. Typical methods of achieving in-

tuitive map navigation could be the use of ”click and

drag” (or ”touch and drag”), ”double click to zoom”,

”scroll to zoom”, ”pinch to zoom”, the use of arrow

keys to pan (important for accessibility), or plus and

minus keys to zoom (Heyman, 2022). These basic

map navigation methods are implemented across all

C2 systems surveyed. Additionally, more sophisti-

cated data-driven maps may use automatic zooming

and panning when an event occurs, for example, a

user selecting a region or creating a key-frame in a

military plan narrative. In cases where a narrative may

occur, e.g., when a commander creates run-through

scenarios, key moments on a map may be presented

as a narrative that is advanceable using buttons. Cur-

rently, none of the systems surveyed include such a

visualization technique.

Focus+Context. Focus plus context as a method of

IVs enables one to see the object of primary interest

presented in complete detail while at the same time

gaining an overview of the surrounding information

available. This technique can be a very spatially efﬁ-

cient method of allowing the user to view detailed in-

formation regarding spatial data. As seen in Figure 7,

we can see how this visualization can be effective in

representing two different types of spatial data simul-

taneously, effectively (Card et al., 1999). None of the

visualizations in the military products examined im-

plement such a technique, presenting another oppor-

tunity for visualization to improve situational aware-

ness.

4.4 Collaboration

Collaboration occurs in an environment where ”par-

ticipants are encouraged to use critical thinking;

IVAPP 2023 - 14th International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications

124

solve problems; and share information, knowledge,

perceptions, ideas, and concepts in a spirit of mu-

tual cooperation” (DOD, 2018). As such, devices,

software tools, and infrastructure that facilitates col-

laboration are aimed at connecting the right people

and data at the right time to complete a task solve

a problem, or discuss something of mutual interest.

Geospatial-temporal visualizations aid this goal in the

planning, execution, and assessment phase

1/3 of

military operations.

Vital to visualizing information intended for mili-

tary collaboration is the possibility to establish a COP,

which is a single identical display of relevant informa-

tion (e.g., maps with the position of own forces and

enemy forces, position and status of critical infras-

tructure such as bridges, roads, etc.) shared by more

than one command. A COP facilitates further collab-

orative planning and execution 1/2 and improves sit-

uational awareness across echelons.

In this survey, we use the Computer Supported

Cooperative Work (CSCW) time-space matrix to

group collaboration types according to Pedersen and

Koumaditis (2020):

• (Temporal dimension) The interaction of users oc-

cur at the same time (synchronous)

• (Temporal dimension) The interaction of users oc-

cur at different times (asynchronous)

• (Spatial dimension) Users are co-located

• (Spatial dimension) Users interact remotely

Out of the four categories introduced by the

CSCW matrix, synchronous and co-located, along

with asynchronous and remote collaboration, are es-

pecially important within military organizations as

synchronous and co-located collaboration can be said

to happen between commanders and their staff in a

command center. In contrast, asynchronous and re-

mote collaboration can be said to occur, e.g., between

commanders and military personnel ”on the ground”.

These two types of collaboration can be said to pri-

marily occur in the planning phase 1 and execution

phase 2 of military operations.

5 DESIGN IMPLICATIONS

A design space describes possible design choices of

varying utility and can be used to derive design guide-

lines and highlight gaps in current solutions. Devel-

oping design guidelines for VUIs used for decision

support can be valuable in reducing the workload of

VUI engineers. In the context of VUI design, a design

space helps to understand and tackle challenges such

as how to:

• Decide on the combination of visualization tech-

niques most suitable for domain tasks.

• Compare existing visualization approaches to

identify their advantages and disadvantages.

The design space this survey assembles empha-

sizes and covers VUI aspects relevant to designing

and developing IVs and GUIs for military decision-

support systems and devices used in extreme situa-

tions characterized by high uncertainty, high risk, and

severe time pressure. However, the design space does

not account for aspects such as data and run-time

complexity, which also inﬂuences VUI design and the

choice of visualization techniques. Our design space

is shown in Table 1. The design space is a method

for analyzing twenty VUIs of military products and

connected devices selected in the survey to be com-

pared in terms of several distinct design considera-

tions, which can provide a basis for guidelines when

implementing geospatial-temporal visualizations in

this context. This design space examines the exam-

ples under the broad categories of review rank, op-

erations process, domain-speciﬁc considerations, and

types of visualizations utilized in such systems. From

our analysis, several implications emerged from the

design space, which we describe in the following.

Implementation of Military Standards. The use

of text highlights an area for potential improvement

across all products. Most of the examples (except

some C2 systems) in our analysis do not strictly ad-

here to and utilize the relevant military standards in

terms of text. Improvements in this area could offer

beneﬁts such as increased legibility, consistency, and

familiarity with military personnel across products

used in military operations. Furthermore, improved

adherence and implementation of text according to

relevant military standards could result in decreased

cognitive load and the possibility of more quickly

gaining a COP and increased consistency across prod-

ucts and nations.

A similar observation can be made regarding

color, where most products do not appear to utilize

color according to the relevant military standards to

their maximum potential. Using color according to

relevant military standards could increase usability,

decrease cognitive load and increase responsiveness

amongst military personnel.

According to our analysis, symbology, as a cat-

egory of analysis, suggests the most signiﬁcant po-

tential for improvement. Strict compliance with rele-

vant military symbology standards is rare. Similarly,

A Survey of Geospatial-Temporal Visualizations for Military Operations

125

there is much scope for improvements in terms of us-

ing metaphors and semiotics in iconography used in

the different products. Implementing such improve-

ments would lend itself to increasing the usability of

the products. Furthermore, it would improve cohe-

siveness and reduce the cognitive load of using such

products.

Map-based Primary Visualizations. Our analysis

of map-based primary visualizations has highlighted

that there may be a disparity in functionality between

systems that utilize map-based primary visualizations

in command and control products and those used in

C2 systems, handheld devices, or small alternative

devices. As such, our analysis has highlighted the

potential to increase map-based primary visualization

capabilities in such devices. For example, such ad-

vancements in map-based primary visualizations in

smaller devices may be achieved by increasing map

overlay and primitive capabilities, increased use of

micro-visualizations, or AR head-mounted devices.

Furthermore, there is a broad scope for improvement

by increasing spatial comparison capabilities, for ex-

ample, through juxtaposition. This is also true for en-

abling multiple layers for additional military layers,

which would similarly increase the capability and ef-

fectiveness of primary visualizations in such devices.

Time-based Geospatial Primary Visualizations.

Primary visualization capacity could be improved by

extending timelines linked to geospatial visualiza-

tions. Including such time-based visualization tech-

niques could enhance military personnel’s ability to

run through what-if scenarios, better understand how

operations play out over time and replay analysis and

assessment

3 of operations.

Alternative & Micro-visualizations. The analysis

of other methods of primary visualizations found that,

overwhelmingly, spatial visualization methods were

the predominant alternative method of displaying pri-

mary visualizations. Furthermore, data glyphs and

word-scale visualizations were not utilized in the ana-

lyzed examples. However, using micro-visualizations

might be an avenue worth pursuing in future research.

Particularly in military sub-sea operations, they may

be of great value to handheld and smaller alternative

devices such as dive computers.

Secondary Visualizations. Our analysis found no

robust trend regarding secondary graphics used in the

examples analyzed, as examples utilize a broad range

of secondary graphics, including diagrams, images,

and data visualizations. Our analysis, however, found

that using images in smaller devices may be a valu-

able development and innovation.

Interaction. In the analyzed examples, there was a

wide and consistent use of interaction methods, in-

cluding map-based interactions, visualization linking,

and information dashboards utilized in all examples

except the smallest analyzed example. However, our

analysis did identify that while most examples use a

wide range of interaction techniques, only some of

the analyzed examples employed the focus plus con-

text interaction method. The focus plus context in-

teraction makes it possible to display essential data

at the focal point at full size and detail and display

the area around the focal point (the context) to help

make sense of how the critical information relates to

the entire data structure. This interaction method may

greatly beneﬁt military operations and, as such, be

considered for implementation in future research.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Through the lens of visualization concepts and the-

ory, this survey examined several academic stud-

ies related to military theory and situational aware-

ness, as well as twenty examples of modern mili-

tary products, to gain an understanding of the types

of geospatial-temporal visualizations that military or-

ganizations use. Some examples highlight novel

geospatial-temporal visualization methods, e.g., (Air-

bus, 2022), which incorporate emerging technologies

such as AR, 4D geospatial visualization, and holo-

graphic tactical sandbox simulation appropriately to

suit the high-level tasks of the domain. However,

many of the examples examined in this survey fall

short of this endeavor for lack of appropriate con-

sideration of the domain-speciﬁc constraints, which

include environmental constraints, display size, input

devices, and suitable graphic design. With these fac-

tors in mind, additional research must be conducted

to assess further geospatial-temporal visualization so-

lutions used in military products. The design space

we provided is based on analyzing academic litera-

ture and studying twenty relevant military products.

We aim to further use the results of this research as a

well-grounded foundation to share and grow knowl-

edge on geospatial-temporal visualization techniques

used in the military domain.

IVAPP 2023 - 14th International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications

126

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Some images in the survey paper are included under

the fair use copyright principle, which allows for the

free use of portions of copyrighted materials for pur-

poses of commentary and discussion. Image courtesy

of Lemoine et al. (2013); Boyce et al. (2022); NATO

Standardization Ofﬁce (NSO) (2019a); Richardson

(2020); Airbus (2022); H

ollt et al. (2019).

The European Defence Industrial Development

Programme has supported this research under the

project CUIIS

(Grant Agreement EDIDP-UCCRS-

EDD-2020-059 — CUIIS). The authors are solely re-

sponsible for this work which does not represent the

opinion of the European Commission. The European

Commission is not responsible for any use that might

be made of information contained in this paper.

REFERENCES

Airbus (2022). Holographic tactical sandbox augmented re-

ality mission preparation. URL: https://www.intellig

ence-airbusds.com/ﬁles/pmedia/public/r66562 9 h

olographic-tactical-sandbox-collaborative-tool.jpg.

Accessed: 17-12-2022.

Andrews, C., Endert, A., Yost, B., and North, C. (2011). In-

formation visualization on large, high-resolution dis-

plays: Issues, challenges, and opportunities. Informa-

tion visualization, 10(4):341–355.

Andrienko, G., Andrienko, N., Demsar, U., Dransch, D.,

Dykes, J., Fabrikant, S. I., Jern, M., Kraak, M.-J.,

Schumann, H., and Tominski, C. (2010). Space, time

and visual analytics. International journal of geo-

graphical information science, 24(10):1577–1600.

Andrienko, N., Andrienko, G., and Gatalsky, P. (2003). Ex-

ploratory spatio-temporal visualization: an analytical

review. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing,

14(6):503–541.

Boyce, M. W., Thomson, R. H., Cartwright, J. K., Felt-

ner, D. T., Stainrod, C. R., Flynn, J., Ackermann, C.,

Emezie, J., Amburn, C. R., and Rovira, E. (2022).

Enhancing military training using extended reality: A

study of military tactics comprehension. Frontiers in

Virtual Reality, 3.

Card, S., Card, M., Mackinlay, J., and Shneiderman, B.

(1999). Readings in Information Visualization: Us-

ing Vision to Think. Interactive Technologies. Elsevier

Science.

Department Of Defense Technical Architecture Framework

For Information Management (DODTAFIM) (1996).

Volume 8: Dod human computer interface style guide.

version 3. Technical report, Department Of Defense

Technical Architecture Framework For Information

Management.

Dissemination website available at: https://cuiis.eu/

Department of the Army (DA) (2005). Map reading and

land navigation. https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm

3-25-26.pdf. Field Manual.

Department of the Army (DA) (2019). The operations pro-

cess (adp 5-0). https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR

pubs/DR a/ARN18126-ADP 5-0-000-WEB-3.pdf.

Doctrine on the Operations Process.

Ferrin, F. J. (1999). Update on optical systems for mili-

tary head-mounted displays. In Lewandowski, R. J.,

Haworth, L. A., and Girolamo, H. J., editors, Helmet-

and Head-Mounted Displays IV, volume 3689, pages

178 – 185. International Society for Optics and Pho-

tonics, SPIE.

Gouin, D. and Evdokiou, P. (2004). A showcase of vi-

sualization approaches for military decision makers.

Technical report, Defence Research and Development

canadavalcartier (Qu

ebec).

Hamdi, A., Shaban, K. B., Erradi, A., Mohamed, A., Rumi,

S. K., and Salim, F. D. (2021). Spatiotemporal data

mining: A survey on challenges and open problems.

CoRR, abs/2103.17128.

Harding, S. (2022). United staes army soldiers felt ill while

testing microsoft’s hololens-based headset. URL: http

s://bit.ly/3FyHskb. Accessed: 27-11-2022.

Hecking, M., Wotzlaw, A., and Coote, R. (2011). Multi-

lingual content extraction extended with background

knowledge for military intelligence. Technical report,

Fraunhofer Society Wachtberg (Germany) Fraunhofer

Inst for Communication.

Heyman, D. (2022). Cartography guide, map interaction.

URL: https://axismaps.com/guide/map-interaction.

Accessed: 15-11-2022.

ollt, T., Vilanova, A., Pezzotti, N., Lelieveldt, B., and

Hauser, H. (2019). Focus+context exploration of hi-

erarchical embeddings. Computer Graphics Forum,

38(3):569–579.

Isenberg, P. (2022). Micro Visualizations: Design and Anal-

ysis of Visualizations for Small Display Spaces. PhD

thesis, Universit

e Paris-Saclay.

Javed, W. and Elmqvist, N. (2012). Exploring the design

space of composite visualization. In 2012 IEEE Pa-

ciﬁc Visualization Symposium, pages 1–8.

Kahn, R., Leiner, B. M., Cerf, V. G., Clark, D. D., Klein-

rock, L., Lynch, D. C., Postel, J., Roberts, L. E., and

Wolff, S. (1997). The evolution of the internet as a

global information system. The International infor-

mation & library review, 29(2):129–151.

Kim, K., Carlis, J. V., and Keefe, D. F. (2017). Comparison

techniques utilized in spatial 3d and 4d data visualiza-

tions: A survey and future directions. Computers &

Graphics, 67:138–147.

Laube, P. (2014). Computational Movement Analysis.

SpringerBriefs in Computer Science. Springer Inter-

national Publishing.

Lazarowska, A. (2022). Safe Trajectory Planning for Mar-

itime Surface Ships, volume 13. Springer International

Publishing, Cham, 1. 2022 edition.

Le Roux, H. (2010). The use of augmented reality in

command and control situation awareness. Scientia

A Survey of Geospatial-Temporal Visualizations for Military Operations

127

Militaria: South African Journal of Military Studies,

38(1):115–133.

Lemoine, O., Franc¸ois, J.-M., and Point, P. (2013). Con-

tribution of TopOwl head mounted display system in

degraded visual environments. In Bernier, K. L. and

uell, J. J., editors, Degraded Visual Environments:

Enhanced, Synthetic, and External Vision Solutions

2013, volume 8737, page 87370B. International So-

ciety for Optics and Photonics, SPIE.

Leuprecht, C. (2019). The enhanced forward presence: in-

novating nato’s deployment model for collective de-

fence. Technical report, NATO Defense College.

Motti, V. G. (2020). Wearable Interaction. Springer Inter-

national Publishing, Cham, 1. 2020 edition.

Munzner, T. (2014). Visualization Analysis and Design. AK

Peters Visualization Series. CRC Press.

NATO Standardization Ofﬁce (NSO) (2018). Nato standard

aap-56: Military correspondence. edition a version 1.

URL: https://www.coemed.org/files/stanags/05 AAP

/AAP-56

EDA V1 E.pdf. Accessed: 25-05-2022.

NATO Standardization Ofﬁce (NSO) (2019a). Nato joint

military symbology app-6(d). https://litpolukrbrig.wp

.mil.pl/u/APP-6D JOINT MILITARY SYMBOLO

GY. 16 October 2017.pdf. Accessed: 28-11-2022.

NATO Standardization Ofﬁce (NSO) (2019b). Nato stan-

dard ajp-5 allied joint doctrine for the planning of op-

erations. https://www.coemed.org/files/stanags/01 A

JP/AJP-5 EDA V2 E 2526.pdf. Accessed: 24-10-

2022.

NATO’s Geospatial Maritime Working Group (GMWG)

(2022). Nato additional military layers handbook:

Information superiority in the maritime environment.

URL: https://assets.admiralty.co.uk/public/2022-06/

20220322 NATO%20AML%20Handbook%20Editi

on%205.pdf?VersionId=in9okGHLWSu0hqMdO0i

hTlNgWggo86hq. Edition 5 March 2022. Accessed:

15-11-2022.

Nguyen, P. H., Xu, K., Walker, R., and Wong, B. L. W.

(2014). Schemaline: Timeline visualization for sense-

making. In 2014 18th International Conference on

Information Visualisation, pages 225–233.

Niu, Y., Ma, G., Xue, W., Xue, C., Zhou, T., Gao, Y.,

Zuo, H., and Jin, T. (2020). Research on the col-

ors of military symbols in digital situation maps based

on event-related potential technology. ISPRS Interna-

tional Journal of Geo-Information, 9(7).

O’Hanlon, M. E. (2018). Forecasting change in mili-

tary technology, 2020-2040. Military Technology,

2020:2040.

Parnow, J. (2015). Micro visualisation: How can micro vi-

sualisations enhance text comprehension, memorabil-

ity, and exploitation? URL: https://microvis.info/th

esis/. Master’s thesis, Potsdam University of Applied

Sciences. Accessed: 02-11-2022.

Pedersen, G. and Koumaditis, K. (2020). Virtual reality (vr)

in the computer supported cooperative work (cscw)

domain: A mapping and a pre-study on functionality

and immersion. In Chen, J. Y. C. and Fragomeni, G.,

editors, Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Indus-

trial and Everyday Life Applications, pages 136–153,

Cham. Springer International Publishing.

Quinn, P. (2022). European defence spending surpasses

C200 billion for ﬁrst time. European Defence Agency.

URL: https://eda.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/2

022/12/08/european-defence-spending-surpasses-2

00-billion-for-first-time-driven-by-record-defence-i

nvestments-in-2021. Accessed: 22-12-2022.

Richardson, J. (2020). Systematic’s sitaware headquarters

for british army. URL: https://euro-sd.com/2020/11/

articles/exclusive/19841/sitaware-for-british-army-3

rd-division/. Accessed: 7-11-2022.

Romeo, L., Nelson, J., Wingo, P., Bauer, J., Justman,

D., Rose, K., and National Energy Technology

Lab. (NETL), Albany, O. U. S. (2019). Cumulative

spatial impact layers: A novel multivariate spatio-

temporal analytical summarization tool. Transactions

in GIS, 23(5):908–936.

Scubapro (2022). Scubapro - galileo hud user manual.

URL: https://ww2.scubapro.com/en-GB/HKG/inst

ruments/computers/products/galileo-hud.aspx. Ac-

cessed: 31-10-2022.

Sibolla, B., Van Zyl, T., and Coetzee, S. (2016). Towards

the development of a taxonomy for visualisation of

streamed geo-spatial data. ISPRS Annals of Pho-

togrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial Information

Sciences, 3(2).

Tardy, T. (2020). “nato 2030. united for a new era“: A

digest. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep27747.

Accessed: 29-10-2022.

United States Navy (1989). Military speciﬁcation: Shock

tests. h.i. (high-impact) shipboard machinery, equip-

ment, and systems, requirements for. URL: http:

//everyspec.com/MIL- SPECS/MIL- SPECS- MIL

-S/MIL-S-901D 14581/. Accessed: 25-11-2022.

U.S. Department of Defence (DOD) (2018). Joint publica-

tion 3-0: Joint operations. https://irp.fas.org/doddir/d

od/jp3 0.pdf. U.S. Department of Defence. Accessed:

15-11-2022.

U.S. Department Of Defense (DOD) (1969). Military stan-

dard: Mechanical vibrations of shipboard equipment.

URL: http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0

100-0299/MIL-STD-167-1 22419/. Accessed: 25-

11-2022.

Usbeck, K., Gillen, M., Loyall, J., Gronosky, A., Ster-

ling, J., Kohler, R., Hanlon, K., Scally, A., Newkirk,

R., and Canestrare, D. (2015). Improving situa-

tion awareness with the Android Team Awareness

Kit (ATAK). In Carapezza, E. M., editor, Sensors,

and Command, Control, Communications, and Intelli-

gence (C3I) Technologies for Homeland Security, De-

fense, and Law Enforcement XIV, volume 9456, page

94560R. International Society for Optics and Photon-

ics, SPIE.

Vidulich, M., Dominguez, C., Vogel, E., and McMillan, G.

(1994). Situation awareness: Papers and annotated

bibliography. Technical report, Air Force Materiel

Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

Zhu, Y., Kancharla, P. R., and Talluru, C. S. K. (2021). A

taxonomy of spatial-temporal data visualization. In

IVAPP 2023 - 14th International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications

128

2021 25th International Conference Information Vi-

sualisation (IV), pages 223–228. IEEE.

Zyszkowska, W. (2016). Visual features of cartographic

representation in map perception. Polish Cartograph-

ical Review, 48(1):5–15.

A Survey of Geospatial-Temporal Visualizations for Military Operations

129