Hacker News Reader

Comment by WJW | Hacker News Reader

Typically this phrase is used for someone who has very little eyesight remaining, but is not completely blind. Many countries have laws prescribing a minimum level of sight below which you are entitled to benefits accorded to blind people (for example, the right to do exams in Braille or orally, or financial compensation towards getting a guide dog in countries where that is part of social healthcare)

View on HN

An example of this challenge appearing elsewhere: in the US, long-haul effects of COVID have recently moved under the Americans with Disabilities Act umbrella. The problem, however, is there’s not a single easy, testable way to determine if someone has it or not.

> the right to do exams in Braille

Because if someone has a perfect sight he is not allowed to do exams in Braille?

Whether it is allowed or not is up to the exam's administrator.

The relevant law in the US, the Americans with Disabilities Act, does not require the admin to allow it unless the exam taker provides a letter from a health-care professional asserting a disability and reimburses the admin for any extra costs in accommodating the disability.

You have the right to require accommodations for a disability, you do not have the right to demand the same accommodations just because you would prefer it that way.

Many types accommodations add extra burden or cost on the service provider, so if someone with e.g. perfect sight asks for a vision-related accommodation, they are allowed to refuse.

There's an unspoken assumption that acting with a disability plus an accommodation should not produce a greater result than the unaided and non-disabled act. I don't know whether that's fair or not, but I think that's the source of the trouble here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com