Digital Accessibility in Investing: What UX Research Can Teach Us About Building More Inclusive Products

What does it really mean for a digital product to be accessible? Passing an accessibility audit is an important step, but it doesn’t necessarily tell us what using that product actually feels like for someone with a disability.

This is where research with people with disabilities can make a real difference. 

By observing how people interact with a website or application in real-life situations, we can uncover barriers that may not be visible in a checklist or automated test - and better understand what they need from the products we build.

This article is a joint effort by our UX Research Team based on the first XTB study with blind and visually impaired people. We looked at the accessibility, usability, intuitiveness and clarity of our website, while also exploring the experiences and challenges participants encounter when using digital services.

If you work in UX research, product or design and are thinking about conducting research with people with disabilities, this article will give you a practical starting point. We’ll share what we learned from our study, what to consider when recruiting participants and preparing the research, how to approach the interviews, and - perhaps most importantly - how to turn the findings into meaningful improvements afterwards.

Because accessibility isn’t just about meeting a set of technical requirements. It’s about understanding people’s real experiences and using that knowledge to build products that work better for everyone.

Why conduct UX research with people with disabilities?

A question that still comes up when discussing research with people with disabilities is whether it is really worth the effort. One reason is the common assumption that this is a relatively small user group. It’s understandable that organisations think about research in terms of costs, resources and expected benefits. We do the same with other projects.

But there’s another important point.

When it comes to digital accessibility, the size of the group is only one part of the picture. People with disabilities should be able to use websites and applications on an equal basis with people without disabilities. Research, alongside methods such as automated testing and accessibility audits, is one of the ways we can support this goal.

There is also the question of scale. According to the 2021 National Census, there are 5.1 million people with disabilities aged 16 and over in Poland, when biological, legal, or combined biological and legal disability is taken into account. Disability, therefore, is far from a marginal phenomenon. And if a company operates across several markets, the population of people with disabilities should be considered in each of those markets.

But numbers aren’t the only reason research matters.

There are many ways to assess and improve digital accessibility: automated tests, accessibility audits, checklists and other methods based on clearly defined criteria. They are important, but do we use only UX audits when designing products for people without disabilities?

Usually not.

We know how much qualitative research with users can add to the design process. The same principle applies here. Audits and checklists can tell us whether a particular accessibility criterion has been met. Research allows us to see what actually happens when a person with a disability interacts with our digital product.

And this is where the research itself becomes particularly valuable.

It helps us understand the barriers people encounter, the effort required to complete a task, their emotions, expectations and pain points. In other words, it allows us to move beyond a checklist and understand the real experience behind it. For example, our research revealed some obvious accessibility issues, such as confusing alternative descriptions for graphics, missing or incorrect markings of clickable elements, and temporarily incorrect heading structures.

But we also discovered things we would never have learned from an audit alone. We saw how difficult it could be to find certain information on a website overloaded with content, and we learned more about what really matters to blind and visually impaired people when they use digital services related to finance.

There is one more aspect that shouldn’t be overlooked: the legal one.

In June 2025, the so-called Polish Accessibility Act came into force, implementing the provisions of the European Accessibility Act and extending accessibility requirements to the private sector. Previously, accessibility obligations had mainly concerned public institutions.

For Product Managers and other people responsible for digital products, the regulatory aspect should therefore be considered alongside the social and ethical dimensions. Research is one of the possible ways to understand where a product currently stands and where improvements are needed.

This is the approach we wanted to take at XTB.

We invited blind and visually impaired people to participate in research designed to assess the accessibility, usability, intuitiveness and clarity of our website.

So, how do you actually prepare for a project like this?

How to prepare for qualitative research with people with disabilities

If you’ve never conducted research with people with disabilities before, it’s completely normal to feel unsure about where to start.

The good news? It doesn’t have to be as complicated as it might initially seem.

Three principles are particularly important:

• Openness - just as in any other research project.
• Good substantive and operational preparation - combined with an understanding that unexpected situations can still happen.
• Keeping stakeholders engaged - so that the research doesn’t become an isolated project with no follow-up.

So, what do these principles look like in practice?

Openness

A person without a disability cannot fully experience what it is like to navigate the digital world with a disability. We have WCAG criteria that provide an important framework for accessibility, but research gives us the opportunity to get much closer to the real experience of users with disabilities. We can observe how they interact with a product and learn:

• how easy or difficult it is to complete a task,
• how much effort it requires,
• what emotions accompany the experience,
• what users need and expect,
• and what they consider to be genuine pain points.

Audits are important and necessary, but they don’t give us all of this information. That’s why it makes sense to use audits and research together. And there’s another important consideration: the way we conduct the interview itself. It’s helpful when the respondent:

• has the opportunity to take on the role of an expert and share their experiences, needs, expectations, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the website or application;
• doesn’t feel pressured to complete tasks within a strict timeframe – people with disabilities may need more time, for example, during moderated usability tests;
• has space to talk about their broader experiences with digital solutions, as this can provide valuable context for our own product;
• knows that the interview isn’t a test of their skills. We’re testing our concept, not them.

The last point is particularly important. Explaining this is standard practice in user research, but it can be worth emphasising even more clearly when working with people with disabilities. An interview situation can itself be stressful, and respondents should feel comfortable sharing when something doesn’t work for them.

Creating this kind of environment is one of the researcher’s key responsibilities.

Is it worth the effort?

Definitely.

Some of our respondents spontaneously told us that they found the conversations interesting and, most importantly, meaningful. They felt that someone genuinely wanted to make the digital world more accessible to them. And that is something an accessibility checklist alone can never tell you.

Good substantive and operational preparation

Research with people with disabilities requires careful preparation, both in terms of the research itself and the practical details surrounding it. Good preparation can reduce the number of unexpected situations during the study. At the same time, it’s important to accept that you can’t plan for everything.

So, what should you consider before the first interview?

Operational considerations

• Place: whenever possible, it can be useful to conduct the research on-site. This gives the researcher an opportunity to observe how the respondent uses the digital solution together with their own supporting tools. The location should also be accessible from an architectural perspective. If respondents use assistance animals, such as guide dogs, this needs to be taken into account as well.
• Time: it’s worth allowing more time for the conversation. For example, instead of scheduling a one-hour session, consider 1.5 hours. This gives both the respondent and the researcher more breathing room. It also creates a buffer for unexpected situations.
• Two or three researchers: having two or three researchers involved can make the process easier to manage. Researchers can rotate between interviews, while one person can also provide practical assistance if needed, for example, helping a respondent enter or leave the building or find their way around the room.
• Recordings and streaming: it’s useful to have several types of recordings available where appropriate: for example, a recording of what the respondent is doing on screen, the interview itself, and, where relevant, a recording of the screen reader. If the research takes place in a focus room, you can also consider live streaming so that stakeholders from the organisation can observe interviews remotely.
• Consents: as with any other research project, all necessary consents should be obtained before the study so that respondents can participate appropriately.
• Polish Sign Language interpreter: if the research also includes people who use Polish Sign Language, an interpreter should be available during the interview.
• Respondents’ own equipment: people with disabilities often use additional devices or software that help them navigate websites and applications. They should be able to use these tools during the study, too. This is important because it brings the research closer to the natural context in which they use the product.
• Recruitment criteria: recruitment criteria should, of course, reflect the goals of the study. At the same time, it can be useful to consider diversity in areas such as demographics, social background, operating system, location and the cause of disability. For visually impaired respondents, for example, this could include conditions such as glaucoma, albinism or retinal detachment.
• Recruitment methods: you can recruit participants independently or work with a recruitment agency. Possible approaches include contacting associations and foundations supporting people with disabilities, using social media, reaching out through your own network, or using the snowball method. If you’re recruiting people who use Polish Sign Language, the recruitment process should also take their preferred method of communication into account.

Substantive considerations

Operational details are only one side of the preparation. The research itself also needs to be designed with flexibility in mind.

• Scenario: the research scenario should be constructed in the same way as for other projects, based on the research goals and questions. At the same time, it should be treated as a framework rather than a script that determines every minute of the conversation. Researchers need to be able to adapt. For example, they may decide to give a respondent more time to complete a task or allow them to talk more broadly about their experiences with the product.
• Substantive preparation: during interviews, people with disabilities may naturally use terminology that is familiar to them but less obvious to people without disabilities. That’s why it’s worth becoming familiar with basic accessibility terminology before the research begins, including terms such as “focus”, “alternative text” and “headings”. You don’t need to become an accessibility specialist overnight. But having a basic understanding makes it much easier to follow the respondent and ask meaningful follow-up questions.
• Pilot interview: if this is your first research project with people with disabilities, a pilot interview can be particularly useful. It gives the researcher an opportunity to become familiar with the interview situation, get a better understanding of the target group and check whether the research scenario works well in practice. Even with careful preparation, however, something unexpected will eventually happen. A technical problem might occur. A respondent might not show up. Or the interview itself might prove difficult for the respondent, meaning it isn’t possible to cover the entire planned scope. Is there a solution?Probably just one: accept that research doesn’t always go according to plan and learn to manage unexpected situations as they arise.

Keeping the organisation engaged

There’s one more thing that can make a significant difference: what happens around the research, not just during it.

This is particularly important when an organisation is still developing its approach to digital accessibility. If people across the organisation understand why the research matters, it becomes much easier to turn findings into actual improvements.

There are several ways to keep stakeholders engaged.

One is to share observations from the research as it progresses, both with the stakeholders who requested the project and with other teams who may benefit from the findings.

Specific examples work particularly well.

When people hear about a real situation experienced by a user, accessibility stops being an abstract concept and becomes something they can understand much more easily. Corporate communication channels can be useful for this. During our research, we shared ongoing observations about what was happening during the sessions.

You can also organise live streaming of interviews or invite stakeholders to observe them directly, where appropriate.

And when it comes to presenting the final results, quotes and concrete examples are extremely valuable. They help stakeholders understand the needs, expectations and pain points of people with disabilities rather than seeing them only as findings in a research report.

What happens after the research?

Conducting the research is only the beginning.

Just as with any other research project, observations, conclusions and recommendations need to translate into action. That happened in our case, too. The findings from our research resulted in specific tasks related to improving digital accessibility on our website.

So, what can help at this stage?

Prioritise the findings.

One useful approach is to assign a level of importance or severity to observations and conclusions. For example, you can distinguish between low, medium and critical issues, as well as neutral or positive observations. A basic understanding of WCAG criteria can also help here, as these criteria provide a framework for assessing different aspects of accessibility.

Work with the right people.

Researchers don’t have to determine the solution to every issue themselves.

Consultations with product teams, developers and accessibility specialists can help establish how serious an issue is and what might be required to address it. Product Owners can then help assess whether and how improvements should be incorporated into the product roadmap.

But there’s one more step that is easy to overlook.

Don’t let the research become a one-off project.

Encouraging the organisation to conduct research with people with disabilities on a regular basis can be an important step towards building a more mature UX and accessibility culture.

After all, it’s impossible to improve accessibility across every product and service at once.

The first study can therefore become a starting point: a way to demonstrate the value of this kind of research and make it a more regular part of the product development process.

And perhaps that’s the biggest lesson I took away from our project.

Accessibility isn’t something we can fully understand from a checklist alone. We need to combine standards, audits and technical knowledge with the experiences of the people actually using our products.

Because when we give users a chance to show us what their experience really looks like, we don’t just find accessibility issues.

We learn how to build better digital products for everyone.

Authors: 

Marta Kempczyńska / UX Researcher at XTB

For the past 5 years at XTB, I’ve been combining hard data with a qualitative understanding of human behavior. I thrive in my work thanks to an empathetic approach, open dialogue, and the adaptability I’ve built through improv comedy. This allows me to easily build rapport, diffuse tense situations, and adapt quickly to change.

Outside of work, I’m constantly on the move (mountains, saunas, run-walking), finding balance through meditation and Wim Hof breathwork. I write poetry, devour non-fiction reportage, and cook by taste and scent. I share my home with an indoor jungle of 30 plants and a charming cat named Batman.

Kinga Mierzejewska - Dębska / Senior UX Researcher at XTB

I’ve been working in research for over 10 years, having been involved in projects across vastly different scales - from public institutions to purely commercial ventures. This diversity has taught me flexibility and a keen awareness of context. My work is grounded in a solid sociological background, and I believe that good research starts with a great question, not a predefined method. I test assumptions and distill complex, multi-layered phenomena into actionable insights - without losing sight of the nuance that makes people unpredictable and fascinating.

Outside of work, I do pottery and travel, with a special soft spot for South America. I believe that the curiosity about the world I take on the road and the one I bring to my work are one and the same.

Katarzyna Tomaszewska  / UX Researcher at XTB

I have been working in the research field for 10 years as a UX and Market Researcher. I deeply believe that research-driven projects guarantee mutual benefits for both users and the business. Drawing on my professional experience, I like to weave a broader CX/HX perspective into my work. What I value most in my work are the moments when actionable insights and recommendations translate into real decisions and actions. That is what gives me a sense of purpose and impact.

I love to travel - always seeking out places that allow me to find peace and tranquility. I have a soft spot for Italian cuisine and enjoy reading books on psychology. I have a cat named Irenka, who is the real boss of my home.