## 2 Theoretical Background  
### Situation Awareness (SA)  
SA is a user-centered design methodology for developing decision support systems. Essentially, SA aims to perceive and comprehend the current situation to make more effective projections of its future status [25], which is critical for successful decision-making in dynamic environments [15]. To design systems that achieve high levels of SA, the SA-oriented design presents three components, as stated by [PERSON], [PERSON], et al. [15], and briefly reviewed below.  
1. _SA requirements analysis._ This component determines the information required for decision-making, i.e., the SA requirements. It uses the goal-directed task analysis (GDTA) method, based on interviews, to elicit the decision-maker's goals for success ful job performance, the decisions needed to achieve those goals, and the information required for those decisions. The SA requirements are structured in three levels: level 1--perception of the elements in the environment, level 2--comprehension of the current situation, and level 3--projection of the future status. This construct represents how the information is processed in the mind of the decision-maker to address a decision, which is the basis of the SA-oriented design [26].
2. _SA-oriented design principles_. This component outlines principles for designing interfaces that increase SA. The principles are designed to present information effectively in alignment with how users process it for decision-making and goal attainment, allowing efficient information management and reducing cognitive load. Likewise, the principles aid designers to leverage technological features, such as display and audio, to improve perception and promote a deeper understanding of the situation, thereby supporting and enhancing SA.
3. _SA measurement_. This component presents methods for evaluating the design's capacity to support SA and identifying SA design aspects for improvement. SA can be measured indirectly by inferring it from observable processes, behaviors, or performance outcomes, or directly from the user when interacting with the system. Indirect methods include verbal protocol analysis, psychophysiological assessment, performance assessment, among others. Direct methods can be subjective or objective. Subjective methods encompass the situational awareness rating technique (SART), SA-subjective workload dominance technique (SA-SWORD), self-ratings, and observer ratings. Objective methods include online probes, post-test questionnaires, and the situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). These methods can be used individually or combined, depending on the purposes, resources, and circumstances of the study.  
Several domains applied many aspects of the SA approach in the design of decision support systems. For instance, in the military domain, [PERSON], [PERSON], et al. [26] determined the SA requirements and applied SA-oriented design principles to create display suites for army command and control operations. In the medical domain, [PERSON] et al. [27] used the GDTA method to understand the goals, decisions, and SA requirements of bio-pharmacologists to improve supervisory control interfaces for biological screening processes. For maritime navigation, [PERSON] et al. [28] used the SAGAT and SART techniques to evaluate the SA of an AR interface design for operating uncrewed maritime vessels.