The accessibility persona spectrum is a great reminder that accessible design is not niche; that accessible design includes everyone, not just people with a disability.
Mailchimp recently asked me to fill out a survey about how it could be improved.
Where to start!? The temptation was to flood them with a long wishlist of things I’ve identified since I started using Mailchimp. But that would have taken ages, and the longer the list, the more likely the Chimpsters would be to ignore it. (Am I kidding myself that they are really going to listen to me?)
So I honed my list down to four Mailchimp improvements that would really really make my life easier. Here they are.
You’re running regular A/B tests. You’re getting invaluable insights into what really engages your audience. You know there are insights that other teams could use, and you don’t want your results to be buried in monthly reports that nobody reads.
How can you make sure your colleagues – and your managers – know about your amazing, insightful test results?
If you have ever scheduled an email in Mailchimp, you may have noticed the option ‘let MailChimp optimise send time for maximum engagement’. This is the Chimp’s ‘send time optimisation’ function. Seems like a great idea. But does it work? I ran a couple of tests to find out. Here are the results.
Citation counts are a quick, if simplistic, indicator of academic impact.
But how many citations are good quality, and how many are low quality, or ‘junk’ citations? I decided to find out.
Using Google Scholar, I reviewed the citations for two of my academic peer-reviewed journal articles. The articles had a combined count of 110 citations. Continue reading
You’ve seen the advice to develop ‘personas’ for segments of your audience. Maybe you’ve tried to work up some personas for your non-profit. If you found the process difficult and the results sketchy, consider these five personas. Right now, they’re looking at your website and social media feeds and wondering whether – and how – they should engage with you. Continue reading
The data you use to evaluate your organisation’s social media strategies are important: they are the lens through which you view the success or failure of different strategies. So it’s important the measures you use are accurate, reliable and fit for purpose.
There are two pitfalls in particular that you need to avoid when measuring social media reach over time. To illustrate these pitfalls, consider the following example for an imaginary organisation wanting to evaluate the impact of a new social media strategy on its Facebook reach.
The popular use of the term ‘human capital’ is too narrow and will soon become redundant. It needs an overhaul. Here’s how to fix it.
If you’ve ever heard an economist talking about ‘human capital’, it’s more than likely they defined the term as the ‘skills and knowledge’ embodied in people, the result of ‘education and training.’
A fond hello and thanks to those people who have recently subscribed to follow my blog. I am honoured you have found artspolicies.org useful and interesting!
However, I should let you know that I’m not actively posting new items at the moment – I have too many competing imperatives and simply don’t have the time. Perhaps one day I will get the chance to write again – it would be great to share ideas with you.
Congratulations to Dr Kerry Kriger and all at Save the Frogs for coordinating another amazing international Save the Frogs Day.
Amphibian populations have been rapidly disappearing worldwide. Nearly one-third of the world’s amphibian species are on the verge of extinction.
Events are taking place all around the world – including in Australia and New Zealand, where we have some amazing and highly threatened amphibians. Read more about them at my previous post, Save the Frogs Day.
The number of animals killed or physically ‘challenged’ in Australian research has continued its merciless rise.
In 2009, 1.46 million animals were subjected to either death or physical challenge through research procedures in Australia – this equates to nearly a third of all animals used in Australian research.
When 2009 figures are compared to 2005, the number of animals made ‘unconscious without recovery’ has doubled; the number experiencing ‘major physiological challenge’ has more than quadrupled.
Australian research seems to be on an unrelenting, merciless march toward greater animal cruelty.
The table below shows the number of animals used in Australian research and teaching by severity of procedure, and the percent increase from 2005.
The data come from Humane Research Australia (HRA), gathered from a variety of sources. HRA points out that there are serious gaps in the data, not least because data are not available for Queensland, Western Australia or the Northern Territory, and data from the ACT do not provide a breakdown by type of procedure.
Another interesting trend is a rise in the production of genetically modified animals. From 2005 to 2007, the number of genetically modified animals produced under Australian research ranged between 4 and 5 thousand animals. In 2008 this number rose dramatically to over 40,000 animals. And in 2009 it rose even more dramatically – more than doubling to over 100,000 animals. It is difficult to determine the level degree of cruelty or suffering experienced by these animals, but the sharp rise will add to the fears for those concerned for the welfare of animals.
|Animal use in research and teaching, Australia, 2009|
|Severity of procedure||Number||Percent change from 2005|
|Observational studies involving minor interference||2,047,891||-5|
|Minor conscious intervention||1,303,266||9|
|Minor operative procedures with recovery||214,964||-18|
|Surgery with recovery||46,644||-3|
|Minor physiological challenge *||254,361||55|
|Major physiological challenge *||590,533||389|
|Animal unconscious without recovery *||583,253||108|
|Death as an end point *||31,789||-17|
|Production of genetically modified animals||104,339||1,957|
|* Combined:Killed or physically ‘challenged’||1,459,936||142|
Data source: Humane Research Australia, humaneresearch.org.au/statistics/
Frogs are in trouble. Around the world their numbers are dropping. Many of Australia’s and New Zealand’s amazing frogs species are under threat. Let’s work together to keep them from disappearing. April 28th is international Save the Frogs Day.
Earth is witnessing an amphibian extinction crisis, with at least half of the world’s 6,600 amphibian species under threat. This is an extinction crisis to dwarf all others: 12 percent of bird species are threatened, and 23 percent of mammal species are threatened.
We need to take action to save our frogs from extinction. Save the Frogs Day is the world’s largest day of amphibian education and conservation action. Now in its third year, the day aims to encourage the appreciation and celebration of amphibians by people from all walks of life.
Addressing the amphibian extinction crisis
represents the greatest species conservation
challenge in the history of humanity.
The number of animals in Australia killed or physically ‘challenged’ by research procedures nearly doubled in three years.
In 2005, just over 600,000 animals were killed or physically ‘challenged’ by research and teaching procedures. By 2008 this had grown to nearly 1.16 million animals: a 92 percent increase, or nearly 555,000 more animals.
The data come from Humane Research Australia, gathered from a variety of sources. HRA points out that there are serious gaps in the data, not least because reporting is patchy – a sign perhaps of the shame some States feel about being honest and transparent about these practices? Taken at face value, they show trends that will shock some and cause concern to many.
The proportion of animals subjected to death or physical ‘challenge’ by procedures increased from about one in six to one in every four animals (from 14 percent in 2005, to 23 percent in 2008).
There was almost a tripling in the number of animals subjected to ‘major physiological challenge’ by research procedures.
It is also interesting also to note the rise in the production of genetically modified animals from around 5,000 in 2005 to 41,000 in 2008. This is a 700 percent rise in three years! A sign of things to come?
The summary table below shows the number of animals used in Australian research and teaching by severity of procedure, and the percent increase from 2005. View the full data here>
|Animal use in research and teaching, Australia, 2008|
|Severity of procedure||Number||Percent change from 2005|
|Observational studies involving minor interference||2,288,358||7|
|Minor conscious intervention||1,389,057||16|
|Minor operative procedures with recovery||82,904||-68|
|Surgery with recovery||36,539||-24|
|Minor physiological challenge *||265,138||62|
|Major physiological challenge *||320,862||166|
|Animal unconscious without recovery *||545,463||95|
|Death as an end point *||26,198||-31|
|Production of genetically modified animals||41,314||715|
|* Combined:Killed or physically ‘challenged’||1,157,661||92|
Data source: Humane Research Australia, aahr.org.au/statistics.html
Text and data analysis: Animal Rights Hub Australasia
There is a great interview on YouTube in which Richard Dawkins interviews Peter Singer on the ethics of how humans perceive and act toward other species.
An excellent way to spend 45 minutes if you have time, the interview is part of a Channel 4 (UK) TV program The Genius of Darwin, which won Best Documentary Series in the 2008 British Broadcasting Awards.
Many of the issues discussed will be familiar to anyone who has read Singer. But it’s always good to hear him talk, as he has a talent for explaining highly abstract ideas in clear and simple language.
The interview covers a lot of ground and requires the brain to do a bit of exercise. But it’s worth it. A brief description of the things they talk about is below.
Dawkins and Singer start out discussing Darwin’s revolutionary view that human beings are animals and not as ‘special’ as pre-Darwinian thinking held. Interestingly, as Dawkins explains, Darwin consciously tried to break the received idea that humans are special, arguing that animals displayed emotions and even spirituality.
The two go on to range across all sorts of issues. They have an interesting discussion about animals suffering for human benefit – where should we draw the line and how should we decide when animal suffering is justifiable? Singer wheels out some frightening statistics: in the USA alone, over 10 billion animals are raised and killed for food each year, while 40 million animals are used for research.
The discussion dwells for a time on Dawkins’ carnivorism, and his self-confessed lack of awareness about the treatment of the animals he eats. Singer argues that meat eaters have a responsibility to know about how animals are reared and slaughtered, because their consumption is likely to be supporting a system that causes pain and suffering. He draws a parallel between meat eaters who turn a blind eye to the suffering of the animals they eat and those who turn a blind eye to human suffering.
Singer’s case is built on two main pillars. First, that animals feel pain. Second, that we should care for others, what he calls his ‘golden rule’ of moral and ethical action: put yourself in the position of others and consider what it is like for them. To not care about how others feel, he says, is ‘cutting yourself off from a part of reality’.
Dawkins considers his continued meat eating to be the result of conformity and lack of social stigma. He draws interesting parallels between animal welfare and slavery.
Singer expresses optimism that the animal movement is making a difference. He suggests we are moving toward a ‘tipping point’ that will see the pressure to eat meat diminish and meat alternatives become more socially acceptable.
They have some pretty way-out discussions about cannibalism, and about whether or not they would eat steak grown in a laboratory. This moral dilemma may be closer than many think, with reports that scientists are trying to develop edible laboratory-grown tissue (see some news items on this rather bizarre development).
Singer and Dawkins also toss around an interesting hypothetical about creating an animal that is a hybrid of human and other species – an animal that would make people think about where and how they draw the line between humans and other animals. It’s good to see these two great minds playing, and even struggling, with the implications of such a concept, rather than going over familiar ground.
Animal Rights Hub Australasia, 12 December 2009