Radar people don't tend to use Allan deviation. They care about phase noise at offsets close to the carrier -- which, again, is the same basic measurement as ADEV, but without the ambiguity in the frequency domain. ("Jitter" is just another way of saying "phase noise" within specified limits of integration. "Jitter bounds" isn't a recognized technical term.)
At some point you have to convert phase noise to frequency bounds (what I called "Jitter bounds", which, I admit, is a term I made up in an attempt to get my point across - what would be the recognized technical term?) Take the example I gave of doppler radar. Unless I completely misunderstand how it works (a real possibility), if you want to specify the error bounds on object velocity, you have to factor in the error in the frequency source - how its output varies in frequency around the desired carrier frequency. Phase noise is normally specified as dBm/Hz at several narrow side bands of the carrier. If you know how to convert that into errors in velocity estimates I would be extremely interested in learning about it (either by explaining it or pointing me to an appropriate reference).
Specifically, radar people don't care about ADEV because the long-term stability of the reference is not of interest. Ordinary frequency drift is disregarded by the signal-processing math simply because radar is inherently a residual measurement, where the returned echo is compared to the transmitter output.
Time-oriented folks are more likely to care about ADEV and related metrics. Need to know which oscillator keeps better time over intervals ranging from minutes to months? Measure the ADEV. Need to know which oscillator keeps better time from microseconds to seconds? Measure the PN.
Hard to see how to make it much more clear than this... but speaking as someone who occasionally needs to write user manuals and tutorials on the subject, I'm always open to suggestions.
Here's the thing. I doubt there are many hobbyists or amateurs who plan to implement a national time standard. This is why ADEV was invented. Allan worked at NBS (now NIST) in Boulder, CO in the department responsible for keeping accurate time and distributing it (e.g., over WWV). I don't know what are the objectives of what you call "
Time-oriented folks", but my guess is they are interested in keeping time, not using it in an application. Or, perhaps more accurately, keeping time is the application.
My interests are different. I want to know what makes one oscillator better than another when used in an application. My original interest was along the lines of "what oscillator should I use to synchronize my equipment (e.g., frequency counter, oscilloscope, spectrum analyzer) when making measurements?" That kind of grew into a general interest of what makes one particular oscillator better than another in general applications (other than very long-term time keeping). Could I test some oscillators and come up with a characterization that would help others make an intelligent choice? If a non-temperature controlled oscillator module is good enough, why use an ocxo?
So, I need a way of characterizing oscillators (initially 10 MHz oscillators) that those who want to use them would find helpful. Obviously, I don't want to invent something myself. That would be pretty nutty. I have neither the time nor interest in the journey that would entail.
Now, I understand some engineers might think this stupid. They just grab something and try it out. If it works, they're done. If not, they try something else. I have no quarrel with them. A lot of time that works. What I am doing isn't going to appeal to them. They think it is a huge waste of time.
However, perhaps over-optimistically, I think there are other engineers that would at least like some information that would help them make an intelligent first choice. From there they can try options. On the other hand, if no one else is interested, I am. So, I will keep plodding along until my curiosity is satisfied.
Added Later: Phase Noise is generally measured in dBc/Hz, not dBm/Hz