I started to clarify that point, and probably should have have done so, or at least done a better job of it. So, let me try.
A visually-impaired student can, of course, write a descriptive essay in which they use other senses beside sight, so "describe a scene, but use senses other than sight" is a reasonable accommodation. A visually-impaired student, or a student who cannot exercise fine motor control, drawing a photo-realistic sketch is not really possible, so "draw a scene in which you do not use sight" (or "draw a photo-realistic scene" when you cannot see is not really possible), so there's not really a reasonable accommodation there. We often have the same accommodation with regards to religious accommodations: a person who cannot, for religious reasons, draw a nude, is not really possible, so there's a reasonable accommodation possible. In one, there's a reasonable accommodation possible. In another, there's really not.
no subject
A visually-impaired student can, of course, write a descriptive essay in which they use other senses beside sight, so "describe a scene, but use senses other than sight" is a reasonable accommodation. A visually-impaired student, or a student who cannot exercise fine motor control, drawing a photo-realistic sketch is not really possible, so "draw a scene in which you do not use sight" (or "draw a photo-realistic scene" when you cannot see is not really possible), so there's not really a reasonable accommodation there. We often have the same accommodation with regards to religious accommodations: a person who cannot, for religious reasons, draw a nude, is not really possible, so there's a reasonable accommodation possible. In one, there's a reasonable accommodation possible. In another, there's really not.
Does that make sense?