Content uploaded by Garreth W. Tigwell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Garreth W. Tigwell on Mar 10, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Exploring the Accessibility of Crypto Technologies
Nash Lyke
nkl8137@rit.edu
School of Information
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, NY, USA
Benjamin M. Gorman
bgorman@bournemouth.ac.uk
Bournemouth University
Bournemouth, UK
Garreth W. Tigwell
garreth.w.tigwell@rit.edu
School of Information
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, NY, USA
ABSTRACT
Blockchain and crypto-based technologies are a rapidly-growing
domain on the cutting edge of web technologies; however, little
research has examined their accessibility for users with disabili-
ties. We focused on a specic area of this domain by completing
accessibility audits of four major cryptocurrency exchanges and ad-
ministered a questionnaire to disabled people to understand poten-
tial accessibility challenges. Our accessibility audit revealed many
severe accessibility violations among each of the major exchange
sites. Participants (n = 72, 23 crypto adopters) reported a wide vari-
ety of accessibility concerns with cryptocurrency exchanges and
using cryptocurrency itself, which presented barriers to access and
adoption of these technologies. We discuss the implications for our
ndings and propose future areas of work in this domain.
CCS CONCEPTS
• Human-centered computing → Accessibility.
KEYWORDS
Accessibility, Cryptocurrency, Blockchain
ACM Reference Format:
Nash Lyke, Benjamin M. Gorman, and Garreth W. Tigwell. 2023. Exploring
the Accessibility of Crypto Technologies. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’23), April
23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 10 pages. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585746
1 INTRODUCTION
We are moving toward a more decentralized iteration of the World
Wide Web, often called the emergence of Web3 [
10
,
16
,
47
]. This is
characterized by the growth of crypto: applied blockchain technolo-
gies such as cryptocurrencies or Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) [
16
,
31
,
42
]. Crypto empowers users by decentralizing record-keeping,
making peer-to-peer transactions anonymous, transparent, and
secure. By spreading the responsibility of verifying blockchain
integrity across its users, it aims to make web technologies more in-
clusive and fair. Web technologies are salient for their universality,
empowering all users with equal access to their many functions [
12
].
For crypto to truly promote equity and fairness, it must be accessi-
ble for all users, regardless of their abilities. However, it is not clear
how accessible crypto is for disabled people.
Cryptocurrency is often the rst entry point for new blockchain
users, since the mechanics of decentralized technologies are not
well-understood by the general public [
21
,
28
,
45
]. As cryptocur-
rency exchanges are the primary method of buying and selling most
cryptocurrencies and NFTs, we determined that assessing accessibil-
ity among the largest exchanges was critical for exploring what chal-
lenges disabled people may face when utilizing crypto technologies.
We conducted accessibility audits of four cryptocurrency exchanges,
Binance.us, Coinbase.com, Crypto.com, and Kraken.com, to deter-
mine their adherence to WCAG 2.1 and IBM web content accessibil-
ity guidelines. We then conducted a qualitative questionnaire with
disabled people to explore their experiences with crypto. Our audits
revealed severe accessibility violations among all crypto exchanges.
Our participants highlighted accessibility barriers throughout all
facets of cryptocurrency technology use, particularly for assistive
technology use. We contribute a novel analysis of accessibility in
crypto, providing rst-hand inspection and user accounts of acces-
sibility challenges in its technologies. We make recommendations
for improving the accessibility of crypto.
2 BACKGROUND & RELATED WORK
2.1 Boons and Barriers to Crypto Adoption
Interest and adoption of crypto have grown rapidly in recent years,
predominantly through cryptocurrency [
17
,
18
,
21
–
23
,
38
,
40
,
41
].
Adopters are often wealthy and highly educated young men, and un-
surprisingly endorse a far greater understanding of blockchain than
non-adopters [
17
,
21
,
45
]. Most choose to adopt cryptocurrency as
a speculative asset, though some use it for cashless payment. Some
adopters cite ideological interest as a driving force, highlighting
its decentralized, largely unregulated form of digital currency as a
“monetary revolution” [27, 37].
Previous work highlighted several barriers to crypto adoptions:
poor understanding and distrust of crypto [
6
,
7
,
35
,
45
], as well as
poor usability in crypto technologies [
6
,
15
,
24
,
46
]. The underly-
ing mechanics of blockchain technologies are complex and often
obscure to the general public, creating a great deal of misunderstand-
ing and distrust in crypto, and discouraging adoption [
6
,
31
,
45
].
There is also ideological distrust of crypto’s decentralized, deregu-
lated nature, which may be perceived as risky and more prone to
fraudulent activity in nancial contexts [
35
,
45
]. Cryptocurrency
exchanges and sites, the most common method of utilizing crypto,
suer from a host of usability issues which also discourage adop-
tion [
6
,
15
,
24
,
46
]. New adopters must acquire an understanding
of trading, as well as site- and application-specic knowledge for
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for prot or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the rst page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany
© 2023 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-9422-2/23/04.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585746
CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany Lyke et al.
completing transactions in their respective exchanges that is simply
not necessary for credit/debit payments [
6
,
15
]. Cryptocurrency ex-
changes oer rich data and functionality for expert users via price
monitoring and other tools, but severely overload novices [
15
].
This overload is exacerbated by poor onboarding and error recov-
ery across wallets and applications, leaving novice users frustrated
when faced with long, irreversible, pending transactions, or sur-
prising hidden fees [
6
,
11
,
15
,
46
]. New users may be bewildered by
crypto wallets, as they function more similarly to bank accounts
than actual wallets [
24
]. Furthermore, some crypto wallet applica-
tions are prone to crashes or other interface bugs leading to lost
wallet access, lost transactions, and lost currency [46].
2.2 Accessibility in the Financial Sphere
Though no work has examined the accessibility of crypto or par-
ticular cryptocurrency services, some previous studies have exam-
ined accessibility in adjacent nancial services, e.g., online bank-
ing [
25
,
49
] or e-commerce [
39
,
43
]. Common accessibility prob-
lems found throughout many websites and applications are also
found within banking and e-commerce sites [
39
,
43
,
49
], such as
poor element labeling, color contrast, and error recovery. These
issues exacerbate intimidation surrounding digital nancial ser-
vices for disabled users, as mistaken inputs can lead to accidental
transactions and catastrophic nancial outcomes [
25
]. This is es-
pecially concerning in crypto because blockchain transactions are
irreversible by their nature [46].
3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Since prior work focused on poor accessibility in more traditional
nancial services and only usability in crypto, we were specically
concerned about the accessibility of crypto technologies and ser-
vices. To establish an understanding of accessibility in crypto, we
sought to determine: 1) Are common crypto technologies accessible?
and 2) What accessibility challenges do disabled users face while
accessing crypto technologies? To answer these questions, we rst
conducted accessibility audits of major cryptocurrency exchanges
to determine if they have prevalent accessibility violations. Then,
we distributed a questionnaire to understand ownership patterns
and accessibility concerns from the perspective of disabled crypto
adopters and non-adopters.
4 STUDY 1: ACCESSIBILITY AUDITS
4.1 Cryptocurrency Exchanges
We audited four cryptocurrency exchange websites: Binance.us,
Coinbase.com, Crypto.com, and Kraken.com, for their compliance
with WCAG 2.1 and IBM Accessibility Requirements. These ex-
changes were chosen as they were the highest rated at the time of
auditing in early 2022 by CoinMarketCap [
3
] and CoinGecko [
1
],
two prominent cryptocurrency market trackers. Their exchange
ratings were based on their high overall volume of currency, high
weekly visits, high liquidity, and high ratings as reputable markets.
We also limited ourselves to exchanges available in the US because
the primary auditor (rst author) was located in the United States.
Some features were disallowed among the exchanges we selected
due to federal and state government regulations.
4.2 Procedure
4.2.1 Accessibility Guidelines. We adapted a previously-established,
comprehensive checklist of potential accessibility violations [
30
],
based on a combination of the WCAG 2.1 [
4
] and IBM’s web con-
tent and application accessibility guidelines [
2
]. This checklist was
organized by WCAG 2.1’s four principles of Web accessibility and
was used as a guide for auditing. Each section of checklist items are
listed in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 (see Appendix A). We paid particular at-
tention to common accessibility violations found in other literature
on web and mobile application accessibility, such as low-contrast
text and missing alt-text (e.g., [
5
,
26
,
34
]). The goal of audits was
not to generate a comprehensive list of all potential accessibility
concerns; rather, we sought to evaluate the experience of using
crypto exchanges for users with an array of access needs, high-
lighting where accessibility issues may create critical barriers for
individuals with impairments.
4.2.2 Assessment Approach. A sighted auditor manually audited
exchange sites to gain a qualitative understanding of accessibility
barriers. The researcher began the audits on a Windows computer
using Firefox, Chrome, and Microsoft Edge’s built-in accessibility
checkers, as well as WebAIM’s WAVE Web Accessibility Evalua-
tion Tool [
48
], to get a broad sense of accessibility and note major
violations, such as missing alt-text and poor color contrast. We
were careful not to rely solely on automated checkers, as previous
literature has established their inadequacy for catching nuanced ac-
cessibility violations [
34
,
44
]. Then, we would inspect each element
on the page. We recorded compliance and guideline violations and
provided notes on the nature of violations. We checked whether
image alt-text was necessary for context or if the image was deco-
rative and did not require alt-text. We would rst traverse the page
with a mouse and keyboard, then with only a keyboard. Lastly, we
traversed pages via screen reader, initially on browser versions of
each site using Windows Narrator and then subsequently on mobile
versions of each site using Android TalkBack. This was to ensure
consistency and robustness across separate testing platforms.
4.2.3 Critical Pathway for Task Assessment. The auditor would get
familiar with the layout of the computer website, making a note
of the landing page, sign-up/login screen, and trading page. We
determined these pages were most important for auditing as they
represent the critical pathway to be able to buy and sell cryptocur-
rencies on these exchanges. Then, starting with the landing page
and working as far as possible on the US site to trading, the auditor
would check each page for all accessibility guidelines.
4.3 Data Analysis
We determined a guideline failure rate as a percentage of violated
guidelines from the total number of guidelines at each severity rat-
ing (A, AA, AAA, IBM). For guidelines with a high volume of simple
pass/fail ratings, such as in alt-text or inaccessible UI components,
we calculated a percentage of inaccessible elements (inaccessible
element rate, IER) calculated from the total elements in the category.
We considered any alt-text violations as a single WCAG A-severity
Perceivability violation for analysis. Finally, we present examples of
accessibility challenges to highlight how users with disabilities may
be discouraged or barred entirely from utilizing crypto exchanges.
Exploring the Accessibility of Crypto Technologies CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany
5 ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT FINDINGS
Our audits revealed many accessibility violations that aected user
experience and access. All sites had critical issues which limited
keyboard-only or screen reader use. These were prominent from the
beginning of site navigation and throughout the sign-up and trading
pathways. They featured common web accessibility issues, e.g., poor
element labeling, poor color contrast, etc., but were uniquely con-
cerning given the nancial stakes of cryptocurrencies. Crypto.com
had the most WCAG 2.1 accessibility violations, but Binance.us had
the highest IER. Alternative presentations of our task assessment
ndings can be found in Appendix A in Tables 5, 6, and 7.
Perceptibility Violations: All sites either failed (Binance; Kraken)
or had only AA-rated color contrast. Binance had the greatest num-
ber of alt-text violations (IER = 39.3%), followed by Crypto.com (IER
= 20.0%). We found no alt-text violations on Coinbase or Kraken;
all images were either properly named or purely decorative.
Operability Violations: We found keyboard traps on Binance
and Crypto.com in their navigation headers. Each site featured at
least one page that failed to utilize heading HTML elements, thus
making the site layout dicult to understand with a screen reader.
We found unreachable elements on Binance and Crypto.com; they
were especially disruptive to keyboard-only and screen reader use.
For instance, keyboard-only users on Binance would not be able to
access the login link or certify their age when creating an account.
Understandability Violations: We found poor element label-
ing on links, buttons, and dropdown menus on all sites, which made
screen reader use unpredictable. These were especially problematic
in sign-up forms, making account creation vague and dicult.
Robustness Violations: Sites functioned similarly across browsers
and screen readers. We found Binance to be the least robust site as it
featured the most inaccessible elements by percentage (93 elements,
IER = 71.0%) and was least accessible with keyboard-only or screen
reader use. It was followed by Crypto (14, IER = 14.0%), Kraken (11,
IER = 5.7%), and Coinbase (2, IER = 2.8%).
5.1 Task Assessment Findings
5.1.1 Navigating Landing Pages. Landing pages for crypto exchanges
were prone to perceivability violations which made the sites more
dicult to understand, often due to poor use of alt-text on mar-
keting materials. For instance, Crypto.com and Kraken presented
users with videos which auto-play on its landing pages; however,
the videos have no text-alternative presentation for screen reader
users. Neither were captioned for deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH)
users, but also did not feature sound—it would be helpful if a cap-
tion at least conrmed there was no sound to remove ambiguity
a DHH user might experience. We found unreachable elements in
the headers of Binance and Crypto.com’s landing pages, making
whole areas of the sites inaccessible without a mouse. TalkBack
could not access links in Crypto.com’s mobile hamburger menu,
again limiting site access. Coinbase’s header sign-up and sign-in
buttons lacked a keyboard indicator. Binance utilized a table to
present prices of highly-traded cryptocurrencies, but could not be
understood with a screen reader as it did not provide column and
row information. It also had poor link labeling, making site interac-
tions unpredictable for screen reader users. Beginning to use crypto
exchanges was dicult with keyboard-only or screen reader use.
5.1.2 Signing Up. Binance, Coinbase, and Kraken allowed users
in the auditor’s geographic area to create accounts, but barred the
auditor from completing transactions or completing account veri-
cation. Crypto.com disallowed users from the primary auditor’s
geographic area access to the rest of its site, stopping its audit at
the landing page. Every element on Binance’s sign-up form lacked
appropriate labeling for screen readers, making it impossible to
know what information was needed to create an account. Kraken
had fewer disruptive errors but still lacked meaningful labeling on
some elements, such as its location dropdown menus. Coinbase
again lacked a focus indicator for its sign-in and sign-up buttons in
its header, and it neither maintained user information for inputs,
nor provided error recovery information in a way that could be
perceived with a screen reader.
5.1.3 Trading. Only Binance and Kraken allowed the auditor ac-
cess to its trading pages, though the auditor could not complete a
transaction. Kraken had some unnamed links, but none were essen-
tial to the trading process. Trading on Binance was very dicult
to simulate with a screen reader or keyboard. Areas of the header,
such as “Trade”, “Resources”, “Notications”, and “Prole” were all
unreachable with a keyboard. The cryptocurrency price trend graph
was not focusable with a keyboard and could not be presented to
a screen reader user. Links throughout the page were not labeled,
which was especially concerning given that users would be mak-
ing nancial transactions on the page. Most concerning, however,
was the lack of labeling or instructions in the form where users
purchase or sell their cryptocurrencies, making trading eectively
inaccessible. The selector for switching between buying and selling
was also not focusable with a keyboard, leaving screen reader and
keyboard-only users stuck only being able to purchase crypto.
6 STUDY 2: QUESTIONNAIRE
6.1 Participants
Participants (n = 72; 39 women, 1 non-binary) were disabled individ-
uals. Less than a third of participants reported having owned or or
ever utilized crypto technologies (n = 23; 32.4%). Most participants
(90.3%) were blind/low-vision, with 20.8% having a hearing, motor,
or cognitive impairment as well. Our participants were between the
ages of 19 and 75 years old (mean = 42.4, SD = 13.9) and highly edu-
cated, with 69.5% having achieved at least an undergraduate degree.
Sixty-ve utilized assistive technologies (AT) in their day-to-day
lives, with 62 participants being screen reader users.
6.2 Procedure
Our questionnaire rst asked for demographics such as age, gender,
and educational background. We asked participants to share their
disability history and any assistive technologies they used. We
then asked about their experiences with crypto, such as if they
owned cryptocurrencies, how they bought, sold, mined, or staked
cryptocurrencies, how they tracked cryptocurrency prices, and
challenges they faced in doing so, due to accessibility or otherwise.
We asked both participants who did and did not endorse experience
with crypto to share their habits with personal nances. This was
to determine if accessibility challenges in crypto were unique to
blockchain technologies or if they are common to all nancial
CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany Lyke et al.
services. Finally, we asked non-adopters of crypto why they had
not considered utilizing crypto technologies and what would make
them consider using these technologies in the future.
6.3 Data Analysis
Quantitative question responses were analyzed using descriptive
statistics to determine frequencies. Qualitative responses to open-
ended questions were examined using reexive inductive thematic
analysis, each being coded and condensed into larger themes [
8
,
9
].
7 QUESTIONNAIRE FINDINGS
7.1 Crypto Experiences Among Users with
Disabilities
All crypto adopters (n = 23) in our sample were owners of cryp-
tocurrency, but did not have experience with other blockchain tech-
nologies. Most owned few currencies (M = 3.6, SD = 2.6). Only 5 had
ever mined or staked, and only two were NFT owners. Most were
typically recent adopters (M-year = 2020, SD-years = 1.8), though
the earliest reported purchase was in 2015. Only 3 owners bought
and sold crypto at least weekly. Over half (53.3%) bought crypto
on a very infrequent basis, such as once a year or only once ever,
and 52.8% had never sold or swapped any of their cryptocurrencies.
Qualitative responses revealed that participants used various meth-
ods to buy and sell their crypto. Exchanges were most commonly
endorsed, e.g., Coinbase, Strike, CoinCorner, etc., though some re-
lied on general stock trading apps such as Robinhood or money
transferring apps like CashApp or PayPal for their cryptocurrency
transactions. One participant was able to buy and sell through their
crypto wallet, Exodus. Three participants relied on a trusted third-
party, such as a friend or family member, to make transactions on
their behalf, and were not aware how their assets were bought.
Over half of respondents (52.7%) monitored cryptocurrency prices
at least weekly, but 36.8% never monitored prices. Those who did
track prices typically used their exchange of choice, though some
utilized apps or specialist websites. Two again had to rely on a
trusted third-party to monitor prices for them. Participants more
often relied on exchanges themselves (43.6%) to hold their crypto
than dedicated hot or cold wallets (21.7%). Two more were unsure
how their assets were stored, while the rest did not share.
7.1.1 Accessibility Concerns for Crypto Users with Disabilities. Eigh-
teen disabled crypto users (78%) reported having experienced at
least one accessibility issue while using crypto or blockchain tech-
nologies. These problems were not localized to any particular crypto
technology or process; rather, they were common throughout all
aspects of crypto use, from simply signing up for exchanges to
completing transactions or storing their cryptocurrencies. Nearly
half of respondents who used crypto technologies (n = 11, 47.8%) ex-
perienced accessibility challenges using cryptocurrency exchanges.
Of those who used cryptocurrency exchanges, 63.6% reported expe-
riencing accessibility challenges every time they used an exchange,
while 27.3% endorsed most of the time, and 9.1% some of the time.
Participants found diculties in both exchange sites and applica-
tions, most commonly with screen reader compatibility. This was
often due to poor labeling on images, charts, and graphs, as well as
poor information layout. These user-reported accessibility barriers
were reected in our audit ndings. Two users reported having
lost nancial incentives on their respective exchanges because they
were unable to access games which may award cryptocurrencies.
Some disabled people (n = 9) reported accessibility issues with
Know Your Customer (KYC) verication. This was especially
salient for those with vision impairments, as one participant ex-
plained: “KYC technologies often ask for photos of [your] ID, but
occasionally do not allow me to use images stored in my camera roll
and instead ask for a fresh photo. This leads to a situation where
I submit a photo that does not adequately capture my photo ID.”
Participants also noted that these issues were not unique to ex-
changes, but were common across cryptocurrency price tracking
sites and applications. Eleven reported that these challenges were
similar to other nancial services they utilize, while only two felt
they were unique to cryptocurrency technologies. Finally, storing
cryptocurrencies was also a challenge for participants, especially
when compared to non-disabled users. Users relied on exchanges
or hot/warm wallets online to store their assets, which oer less
security than cold, hardware wallets; however, cold wallets were
simply inaccessible for most blind or low vision users.
Most disabled users simply gave up from frustration when facing
accessibility barriers. Few sought help from site support sta; their
concerns typically went unresolved. Others still relied on a friend or
family member to manage their crypto assets. Participants reported
feelings of frustration, dependency on others, and exclusion from
crypto technologies due to accessibility barriers. Disabled users
recommended greater compatibility with AT and more inclusion of
disabled users in crypto development to improve accessibility.
7.1.2 Accessibility Challenges in Broader Financial Services. Most
participants handled their own nances (n = 62; 86.1%). Of those
who handled their own nances, 62.9% had encountered accessibil-
ity problems while using nancial services. Qualitative responses
reveal that these issues were again present throughout various
facets of nancial services. Poor web and mobile accessibility for
ATs due to poor element labeling was the crux of frustration for
disabled users, as one participant concisely noted: “I must rely on a
sighted person to read certain documents to me. This takes away my
privacy and independence.” PDFs and ATMs also lacked support for
assistive technologies. Some participants reported accessibility chal-
lenges with physical banking, such as non-Braille paper documents
and inadequate public transit. Disabled users were again faced with
the choice of accepting their inability to access to nancial services,
moving from bank-to-bank to nd the most accessible service, or
relying on external support from friends and family.
7.2 Perceptions of Crypto Technologies by
Disabled Non-Adopters
Disabled participants who had not adopted crypto (n = 49) cited a
combination of reasons for non-adoption. Nineteen of 35 respon-
dents endorsed that their disability discourages them from trying
to access crypto, and 26 endorsed having general accessibility con-
cerns with crypto technologies. They assumed that many crypto
sites and apps would have poor screen reader compatibility and
element labeling, which would disallow them from managing and
trading their nancial assets in a timely and lucrative manner. How-
ever, participants most cited a lack of understanding and clarity of
Exploring the Accessibility of Crypto Technologies CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany
crypto technology as the greatest reason for non-adoption. It was
common for participants to report concern with the volatility and
nancial risk associated with cryptocurrencies, and either did not
have or did not feel comfortable using extra funds to invest in it.
Others (n = 10) still were distrustful and skeptical of crypto, due to
its lack of regulation, security concerns, and perceptions of it being
a fraudulent market. One participant encapsulated these fears, say-
ing, “without watchdogs and oversight, I believe the rst to be taken
advantage of are those of us with impairments or disabilities.” Finally,
some (n = 8) participants simply were not interested in crypto,
or preferred other investment options. When asked what would
make crypto technologies more desirable in the future, disabled
non-adopters reported needing greater understanding of crypto
technologies generally and assurance that crypto was accessible.
Decreased nancial risk, greater regulation and security, and more
widespread use were also raised.
8 DISCUSSION
Our ndings illustrate a wide variety of accessibility challenges for
individuals with disabilities, especially vision impairments, when
trying to access crypto technologies. We found substantial agree-
ment between our audits of cryptocurrency exchanges and partici-
pant accounts of their cryptocurrency use. We found unlabeled and
unreachable elements to be the most detrimental to crypto exchange
use with AT, supporting many participant-reported diculties with
screen reader compatibility. Many accessibility violations were typ-
ical of accessibility violations across the web [
5
,
33
], and reinforce
the continued need for awareness in accessible web design.
Given how quickly we found catastrophic accessibility issues on
the landing pages of Binance.us and Crypto.com, it was unsurpris-
ing that many disabled people found most exchanges inaccessible.
Binance was the least accessible for users, as critical areas of site
necessary for traversal and trading were not usable with AT. We
found Coinbase.com to be the most accessible along its critical
trading pathway, and this was supported by our participants who
frequently referenced it as an exchange of choice. User reports
also addressed several areas of concern which we could not assess
in our audits, i.e., KYC verication, crypto storage and wallet ac-
cessibility, and troubleshooting strategies. KYC verication and
crypto wallets created problems unique for disabled people, and
reveal a lack of consideration for users with dierential abilities
in crypto technologies. Our results support previous ndings in
digital nance accessibility [
25
,
39
,
43
,
49
]. It is clear that among
digitized nancial technologies, accessibility barriers continue to
disallow disabled people access to growing areas of investment
and ultimately independence over their nances. These accessi-
bility challenges left many of our participants feeling frustrated,
excluded, and dependent on others. Cryptocurrency technologies
require many accessibility improvements before disabled users are
able to exercise nancial freedom equal to non-disabled users.
Non-adopters of crypto in our sample cited many commonly-
reported barriers to crypto adoption among the general population,
such as lack of knowledge in the domain, distrust of the technology
and its processes, or nancial risk [
6
,
7
,
15
,
17
,
22
,
35
,
41
,
45
,
46
];
however, these barriers were often exacerbated by the many acces-
sibility concerns users expected to encounter. These expectations
were likely a combination of crypto’s reputation for poor usabil-
ity and participants’ poor experiences with other nancial tools.
No participants had experience with crypto technologies beyond
cryptocurrency. Our ndings signal a need to improve both accessi-
bility and education in blockchain technologies in order to improve
awareness of crypto and encourage adoption among disabled users.
8.1 Improving Crypto Accessibility
Our participants recommended improved compatibility with AT as
a primary area for improvement, tackling the main areas of concern
in our ndings and across accessibility research [
4
,
14
,
19
,
20
,
29
,
32
,
36
]; however, some users noted that the best way to ensure
accessibility is to involve those with disabilities in the development
process. These reports are consistent with recommendations across
accessibility research, but insights from the disabled community
remain underutilized in practice [
13
]. Crypto and nascent technolo-
gies broadly should be keen to leverage the experiences of disabled
users and ensure inclusivity in the development process. Inclusivity
in crypto is of benet not only to potential users with disabilities
who may nally access an expanding nancial sector, but also to the
crypto industry itself, whose value, liquidity, and legitimacy rely
on an ever-growing user base. If the goal of cryptocurrency is to
decentralize and democratize nance, accessibility considerations
should be fundamental to its development, ensuring that all users
regardless of their abilities may access and utilize it to its fullest.
8.2 Limitations & Future Work
We note several limitations in our work. We relied on a question-
naire design which provided a focused but narrow view of partici-
pant experiences, as well as the auditor’s judgment of accessibility
severity as a non-disabled person. Future works in crypto acces-
sibility should utilize data-rich study designs, such as interviews
or workshops, to explore use through the perspective of disabled
people. Regulations hindered our audits in the primary auditor’s
geographic area, and we could not test all aspects of cryptocurrency
use. Replication of our study design in areas with less use restric-
tions would provide more complete and exhaustive audits of these
technologies. Finally, we inspected only websites as they allowed
for the use of automated accessibility tools to assist auditing. Future
works should address accessibility in crypto mobile applications, as
participants utilized them for all aspects of crypto ownership and
may present their own unique challenges.
9 CONCLUSION
We have contributed a novel analysis of accessibility in emerging
crypto technologies via an accessibility audit of top cryptocurrency
exchanges and a questionnaire surveying disabled crypto users.
Our audits found substantial and severe accessibility violations on
each exchange which made them especially arduous to use with
screen readers. Our participants reported a wide variety of accessi-
bility concerns with crypto technologies which both supported and
bolstered our audit ndings. We have addressed implications for
accessibility in crypto technologies and recommend improvements,
as well as potential areas of future work in the domain.
004
CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany Lyke et al.
REFERENCES
[1] 2022. https://www.coingecko.com/en/exchanges
[2] 2022. https://www.ibm.com/able/requirements/requirements/
[3]
2022. Cryptocurrency prices, charts and market capitalizations. https:
//coinmarketcap.com/
[4]
2022. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/
TR/WCAG21/
[5]
2022. WebAIM: The WebAIM Million - An annual accessibility analysis of the
top 1,000,000 home pages. https://webaim.org/projects/million/
[6]
Abdulla Alshamsi and Prof. Peter Andras. 2019. User perception of Bitcoin
usability and security across novice users. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies 126 (Jun 2019), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.02.
[7]
Mohammed AlShamsi, Mostafa Al-Emran, and Khaled Shaalan. 2022. A System-
atic Review on Blockchain Adoption. Applied Sciences 12, 9 (2022), 4245.
[8]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.
[9]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reecting on reexive thematic analysis.
Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health 11, 4 (2019), 589–597.
[10]
Longbing Cao. 2022. Decentralized ai: Edge intelligence and smart blockchain,
metaverse, web3, and desci. IEEE Intelligent Systems 37, 3 (2022), 6–19.
[11]
Lin William Cong, Ke Tang, Yanxin Wang, and Xi Zhao. 2023. Inclusion and de-
mocratization through web3 and de? initial evidence from the ethereum ecosystem.
Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.
[12]
World Wide Web Consortium. 1997. World Wide Web Consortium Launches
International Program Oce for Web Accessibility Initiative. https://www.w3.
org/Press/IPO-announce
[13]
Sheri Byrne-Haber CPACC. 2019. The accessibility issue more people with disabil-
ities should think about. https://sheribyrnehaber.medium.com/the-accessibility-
issue-more- people-with- disabilities-should- think-about-7d9eae443da
[14]
José-Manuel Díaz-Bossini and Lourdes Moreno. 2014. Accessibility to Mobile
Interfaces for Older People. Procedia Computer Science 27 (Jan 2014), 57–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.02.008
[15]
Michael Froehlich, Charlotte Kobiella, Albrecht Schmidt, and Florian Alt. 2021.
Is it Better With Onboarding? Improving First-Time Cryptocurrency App Expe-
riences. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021 (DIS ’21). Association
for Computing Machinery, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462047
[16]
Michael Fröhlich, Franz Waltenberger, Ludwig Trotter, Florian Alt, and Albrecht
Schmidt. 2022. Blockchain and Cryptocurrency in Human Computer Inter-
action: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2204.10857 (2022).
[17]
Hiroshi Fujiki. 2020. Who adopts crypto assets in Japan? Evidence from the 2019
nancial literacy survey. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 58
(2020), 101107.
[18]
Hanna Halaburda, Guillaume Haeringer, Joshua Gans, and Neil Gandal. 2022.
The microeconomics of cryptocurrencies. Journal of Economic Literature 60, 3
(2022), 971–1013.
[19]
Simon Harper and Alex Q Chen. 2012. Web accessibility guidelines. World Wide
Web 15, 1 (2012), 61–88.
[20]
Simon Harper and Yeliz Yesilada. 2008. Web accessibility: a foundation for research.
Springer.
[21]
Christopher Henry, Kim Huynh, Gradon Nicholls, and Mitchell Nicholson. 2019.
2018 Bitcoin Omnibus Survey: Awareness and Usage. Technical Report. Bank of
Canada Sta Discussion Paper.
[22]
Christopher S Henry, Kim P Huynh, and Gradon Nicholls. 2018. Bitcoin awareness
and usage in Canada. Journal of Digital Banking 2, 4 (2018), 311–337.
[23]
Christopher S Henry, Kim P Huynh, and Gradon Nicholls. 2019. Bitcoin awareness
and usage in canada: An update. The Journal of Investing 28, 3 (2019), 21–31.
[24]
Hyeji Jang, Sung H. Han, Ju Hwan Kim, and Kimin Kwon. 2021. Usability Evalu-
ation for Cryptocurrency Exchange. In Convergence of Ergonomics and Design,
Alma Maria Jennifer Gutierrez, Ravindra S. Goonetilleke, and Rex Aurellius C.
Robielos (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, 192–196.
[25]
Xiaofu Jin, Emily Kuang, and Mingming Fan. 2021. ”Too old to bank digitally? ”:
A Survey of Banking Practices and Challenges Among Older Adults in China. In
Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021. ACM, 802–814. https://doi.org/
10.1145/3461778.3462127
[26]
Shaun K. Kane, Jessie A. Shulman, Timothy J. Shockley, and Richard E. Ladner.
2007. A web accessibility report card for top international university web sites.
In Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web ac-
cessibility (W4A) (W4A ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, 148–156.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1243441.1243472
[27]
Irni Eliana Khairuddin, Corina Sas, Sarah Clinch, and Nigel Davies. 2016. Ex-
ploring Motivations for Bitcoin Technology Usage. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI
Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose,
California, USA) (CHI EA ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
NY, USA, 2872–2878. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892500
[28]
Mitch Kramer. 2019. An overview of blockchain technology based on a study of
public awareness. Global Journal of Business Research 13, 1 (2019), 83–91.
[29]
Jonathan Lazar, Alfreda Dudley-Sponaugle, and Kisha-Dawn Greenidge. 2004.
Improving web accessibility: a study of webmaster perceptions. Computers in
human behavior 20, 2 (2004), 269–288.
[30]
Junchen Li, Garreth W. Tigwell, and Kristen Shinohara. 2021. Accessibility of
High-Fidelity Prototyping Tools. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 493, 17 pages. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445520
[31]
Dave Murray-Rust, Chris Elsden, Bettina Nissen, Ella Tallyn, Larissa Pschetz, and
Chris Speed. 2021. Blockchain and Beyond: Understanding Blockchains through
Prototypes and Public Engagement. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction (Nov 2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3503462 Just Accepted.
[32] Mike Paciello. 2000. Web accessibility for people with disabilities. Crc Press.
[33]
Afra Pascual, Mireia Ribera, and Toni Granollers. 2014. Impact of web accessibility
barriers on users with hearing impairment. In Proceedings of the XV International
Conference on Human Computer Interaction - Interacción ’14. ACM Press, 1–2.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2662253.2662261
[34]
Christopher Power, André Freire, Helen Petrie, and David Swallow. 2012. Guide-
lines are only half of the story: accessibility problems encountered by blind
users on the web. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems. ACM, 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207736
[35]
Muhammad Habib ur Rehman, Khaled Salah, Ernesto Damiani, and Davor
Svetinovic. 2020. Trust in Blockchain Cryptocurrency Ecosystem. IEEE Transac-
tions on Engineering Management 67, 4 (Nov 2020), 1196–1212. https://doi.org/
10.1109/TEM.2019.2948861
[36]
Richard Rutter, Patrick H Lauke, Cynthia Waddell, Jim Thatcher, Shawn Lawton
Henry, Bruce Lawson, Andrew Kirkpatrick, Christian Heilmann, Michael R Burks,
Bob Regan, et al
.
2007. Web accessibility: Web standards and regulatory compliance.
Apress.
[37]
Corina Sas and Irni Eliana Khairuddin. 2015. Exploring trust in Bitcoin technol-
ogy: a framework for HCI research. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the
Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction. 338–342.
[38]
Scott Schuh and Ozz Shy. 2016. US consumers’ adoption and use of Bitcoin and
other virtual currencies. In DeNederlandsche bank, Conference entitled “Retail
payments: mapping out the road ahead.
[39]
Osama Sohaib and Kyeong Kang. 2017. E-Commerce Web Accessibility for People
with Disabilities. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, Vol. 22.
Springer International Publishing, 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-
52593-8_6
[40]
Fred Steinmetz, Marc von Meduna, Lennart Ante, and Ingo Fiedler. 2021. Owner-
ship, uses and perceptions of cryptocurrency: Results from a population survey.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 173 (2021), 121073.
[41]
Helmut Stix. 2021. Ownership and purchase intention of crypto-assets: survey
results. Empirica 48, 1 (2021), 65–99.
[42] Melanie Swan. 2015. Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. " O’Reilly Media,
Inc.".
[43]
Hironobu Takagi, Shin Saito, Kentarou Fukuda, and Chieko Asakawa. 2007.
Analysis of navigability of Web applications for improving blind usability.
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 14, 3 (Sep 2007), 13. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/1279700.1279703
[44]
Markel Vigo, Justin Brown, and Vivienne Conway. 2013. Benchmarking web
accessibility evaluation tools: measuring the harm of sole reliance on automated
tests. In Proceedings of the 10th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web
Accessibility - W4A ’13. ACM Press, 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/2461121.2461124
[45]
Artemij Voskobojnikov, Svetlana Abramova, Konstantin Beznosov, and Rainer
Böhme. 2021. Non-Adoption of Crypto-Assets: Exploring the Role of Trust,
Self-Ecacy, and Risk. (2021).
[46]
Artemij Voskobojnikov, Oliver Wiese, Masoud Mehrabi Koushki, Volker Roth,
and Konstantin (Kosta) Beznosov. 2021. The U in Crypto Stands for Usable: An
Empirical Study of User Experience with Mobile Cryptocurrency Wallets. In
Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
ACM, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445407
[47]
Qin Wang, Rujia Li, Qi Wang, Shiping Chen, Mark Ryan, and Thomas Hardjono.
2022. Exploring web3 from the view of blockchain. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.08821
(2022).
[48]
WebAIM. 2022. Wave Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools. https://wave.webaim.
org/
[49]
Brian Wentz, Dung Pham, Erin Feaser, Dylan Smith, James Smith, and Allison
Wilson. 2019. Documenting the accessibility of 100 US bank and nance websites.
Universal Access in the Information Society 18, 4 (Nov 2019), 871–880. https:
//doi.org/10.1007/s10209-018- 0616-6
A APPENDIX
Exploring the Accessibility of Crypto Technologies CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany
Table 1: A list of the guidelines we used in our accessibility audit to focus on perceivability
Checklist Item
Associated WCAG and/or
IBM Guidelines
Check for alt-text on all non-decorative images. WCAG 1.1 (A)
Check that all non-text content has an alternative presentation. WCAG 1.1 (A)
Check for captioning on prerecorded audio/video content. WCAG 1.2 (A)
Check for captioning for live content. WCAG 1.2 (AA)
Check for an audio description of video content. WCAG 1.2 (AA)
Check for sign language support for videos/audio content. WCAG 1.2 (AAA)
Check if all elements are arranged in a meaningful order. WCAG 1.3.2 (A)
Check if information is conveyed solely through color. WCAG 1.4.1 (A)
Check for audio controls on automatic video/audio content that plays for more than 3 seconds. WCAG 1.4.2 (A)
Check if color contrast of elements and background is at least 4.5:1 (preferably 7:1 [AAA]) via
color picker. WCAG 1.4.3 (AA)
Check text size is at least larger than approximately 16px or can be zoomed into 200%. WCAG 1.4.4 (AA)
Table 2: A list of the guidelines we used in our accessibility audit to focus on operability
Checklist Item
Associated WCAG and/or
IBM Guidelines
Test if GUI is navigable with keyboard arrow keys. WCAG 2.1 (A)
Test if GUI elements can be invoked with enter/spacebar. WCAG 2.1 (A)
Test if GUI interactions can be revoked with escape. WCAG 2.1 (A)
Check for any keyboard traps. WCAG 2.1.2 (A)
Check for keyboard shortcuts which require use of letter, number, or punctuation keys. Do they
utilize non-print keys (ctrl, alt, etc.) and can they be remapped? WCAG 2.1.4 (A)
Check for time limits on content. Do users get enough time to reasonably access content? Can
users alter/remove time limits? WCAG 2.2.1 (A)
Check if blinking, scrolling, or auto-updating content can be paused, stopped, or hidden unless
essential for function. WCAG 2.2.2 (A)
Check if timing is essential anywhere. WCAG 2.2.3 (AAA)
Check if interruptions can be suppressed or postponed, except in emergencies. WCAG 2.2.4 (AAA)
Check if anything ashes more than 3 times in a row in any one second period. WCAG 2.3 (A)
Check if repeated blocks of content can be bypassed. WCAG 2.4.1 (A)
Is all functionality maintained via keyboard, without requiring specic timings for keystrokes? WCAG 2.4.2 (AAA)
Is the page properly titled? WCAG 2.4.2 (A)
Are content headings properly labeled? WCAG 2.4.2 (AA)
Are page sections labeled? WCAG 2.4.2 (AAA)
For tables, does screen reader read name, description, row, and column headings when appropriate?
IBM 502.3.3
Can the page be navigated sequentially and in an order which preserves meaning? WCAG 2.4.3 (A)
Can the purpose of a link be determined from its text alone or link context? WCAG 2.4.4 (A)
Is there a keyboard focus indicator available when using only the keyboard? WCAG 2.4.7 (AA)
CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany Lyke et al.
Table 3: A list of the guidelines we used in our accessibility audit to focus on understandability
Checklist Item
Associated WCAG and/or
IBM Guidelines
Do interactions work as expected based on their appearance/labeling? WCAG 3.2 (A)
Does the in-app context change based on the current focus or user input without warn-
ing/explanation? WCAG 3.2 (A)
Does the application provide error recognition and recovery options? WCAG 3.3 (A)
Do error messages speak the user’s language? WCAG 3.3 (A)
Are these error messages perceivable while using a screen reader? WCAG 3.3 (A)
Do they provide solutions or useful suggestions for recovery? WCAG 3.3.1 (A)
Are forms are labeled? WCAG 3.3.2 (A)
Do forms maintain user information? WCAG 3.3.2 (A)
Does the application ask for conrmation after nancial transactions?* WCAG 3.3.4 (AA)
Does the application/site allow for correction/reversal during nancial transactions?* WCAG 3.3.4 (AA)
*Could not be assessed in the auditor’s region.
Table 4: A list of the guidelines we used in our accessibility audit to focus on robustness
Checklist Item
Associated WCAG and/or
IBM Guidelines
Does the software allow user control over platform accessibility features? IBM 502.2.1
Check for user control of text size/font. IBM 502.2.1
Check for user control of color. IBM 502.2.1
Check for user control of element sizes. IBM 502.2.1
Check for alternatives to gestural controls. IBM 502.2.1
Does the application disrupt any platform accessibility features? IBM 502.2.2
Can page language be programmatically determined? WCAG 4.1.1 (A)
Test if all UI components/object names, state, control type, actions, and instructions can be pro-
grammatically determined by navigating through application. WCAG 4.1.2 (A)
IBM 502.3.1
Any current values or range of possible values is programmatically determinable. IBM 502.3.4
Are status messages programmatically determinable such that they can be perceived via assistive
technologies without receiving focus? WCAG 4.1.3 (AAA)
Exploring the Accessibility of Crypto Technologies CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany
Table 5: Critical accessibility violations in site landing pages
Exchange
Violated Guidelines
(Severity) Issues Found Implications for Users
Binance WCAG 2.1.1 (A) - Keyboard
Trade and Resources links in header were
unreachable with keyboard-only use.
Keyboard-only or screen reader users can-
not reach the trading or resources pages
through the site’s main navigation.
Binance
IBM 502.3.3 - For tables,
screen reader reads name,
description, row, and col-
umn names.
A table presenting the prices of highly-
traded cryptocurrencies could not be un-
derstood using a screen reader as row la-
bels could not be read.
Screen reader users may have diculty
understanding what prices are associated
with which currencies in the table.
Coinbase
WCAG 2.4.7 - Keyboard Fo-
cus Indicator
Sign-in/sign-up buttons lacked a focus in-
dicator for during keyboard-only use.
Keyboard-only users would have diculty
knowing if they have reached their sign-
in/sign-up buttons in the header, impeding
their ability to access or create accounts.
Crypto.com
WCAG 2.1.2 (A) - No Key-
board Trap
There was a keyboard trap on the NFT link
in the header of the landing page.
Keyboard-only and screen reader users
were blocked from accessing much of the
header and subsequent landing page with-
out reloading the page and avoiding the
link.
Crypto.com
WCAG 2.4.3 (A) - Focus Or-
der
Mobile hamburger menu was skipped over
and unreachable when using a screen
reader.
Mobile screen reader users would have
great diculty navigating the Crypto.com
site as the main navigation is inaccessible.
Crypto.com
WCAG 1.2.1 (A) - Alterna-
tives for Audio/Video
No captions or text description were pre-
sented for an auto-playing, soundless com-
mercial that gives the appearance of peo-
ple talking.
Though it serves as a decorative back-
ground, it would benet DHH users to pro-
vide a caption clarifying it has no sound.
Kraken
WCAG 1.2.1 (A) - Alterna-
tives for Audio/Video
No captions or text description were pre-
sented for an auto-playing, soundless
video that shows trading through their
app.
To remove ambiguity for DHH users, it
would be helpful to clarify there is no
sound or voiceover.
Table 6: Critical Accessibility Violations in Sign-Up Task
Exchange
Violated Guidelines
(Severity) Issues Found Implications for Users
Binance
WCAG 4.1.2 (A) & IBM
502.3.1 - Programmatically
Determinable Elements
All elements on Binance’s sign-up form
were unlabeled.
Screen reader users would not know what
information to input in each form box,
making account creation nearly impossi-
ble without help.
Coinbase
WCAG 3.3.1 (A) - Error Iden-
tication
Error messages were provided during sign-
up but were not perceivable with a screen
reader.
Screen reader users would have diculty
knowing if they have made a mistake in
their inputs for signing up as they could
not be read by a screen reader.
Kraken
WCAG 4.1.2 (A) & IBM
502.3.1 - Programmatically
Determinable Elements
The dropdown menu for selecting the
user’s location could not be traversed with
a screen reader.
Screen reader users would be unable to
provide their location during sign-up, mak-
ing it impossible create an account without
assistance.
CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany Lyke et al.
Table 7: Critical Accessibility Violations in Trading Task
Exchange
Violated Guidelines
(Severity) Issues Found Implications for Users
Binance WCAG 2.1.1 (A) - Keyboard
Areas of the header, i.e., Trade, Resources,
Notications, and Prole, and cryptocur-
rency price trend graphs were all unreach-
able using keyboard-only or screen reader.
Keyboard-only or screen reader users
would continue to have diculty utiliz-
ing the site navigation and be unable to
eectively read the crypto market without
assistance.
Binance
WCAG 4.1.2 (A) & IBM
502.3.1 - Programmatically
Determinable Elements
Elements necessary to purchase or sell
cryptocurrencies were unlabeled.
Screen reader users would have great di-
culty knowing where to input information
necessary to trade, and may have acciden-
tal transactions.
Kraken WCAG 2.4.4 (A) - Link Con-
text
Home and social media links were not
named.
Though not essential to trading, poor link
labeling may create ambiguity for navigat-
ing during screen reader use.
