People have different ideas of what "disabled" means.

Broadening the definition makes it less useful in many ways. I would consider "disabled" to mean one of: - Unable to ambulate effectively (requires crutches or worse) - Unable to look after oneself as an adult (for any combination of reasons) - Unable to use tools and items most people would consider standard - eg. can't hold a pencil, write, type, whatever.

That's a fairly harsh definition of disabled, but all of these people unambiguously require accommodation because of their incapacity. It's also off the top of my head, so I'd happily broaden it if you want to argue the point.

If I can talk to someone for an entire day and not realise or notice they are disabled in some way, I question the definition being used - how helpful is it in deciding how we should allocate additional resources and help in that case?