Next year you should be very clear that this is an April fools day video. Point out the day that it is, the tradition of making gag videos on April fools, and that you want to be very, very clear that this is a joke, a parody, not something to be taken seriously.
And end the video there.
That’s actually an awesome idea!
Now hear this! Now hear this! This is the Captain speaking. I shall now make a joke. [Click].
There is a significant issue in trail building and wilderness recreation. Part of what makes some areas appealing are their remote access and inaccessibility, which has a side effect of limiting use. If you provide accessablilty (for example by building a bridge) then more people can get there, but their experience is fundementally changed. Obviously, this interacts with the disabled community in ways that aren’t always so clear cut.
When making an April Fools prank/joke, you can expect one of three primary responses:
People who immediately understand it’s a joke and stick around to watch the joke unfold.
People who are tricked for a while, but enjoy the moment when they discover they were fooled.
People who are tricked for a while, and are unhappy when they discover they were fooled. They may tell you they didn’t like it.
If you’re making April Fools content, you have to expect some people will fall into category 3. It’s an intended outcome.
Sure, but I’m not sure this is as completely straightforward as people who simply didn’t like it for personal or aesthetic reasons
Yes, but this was specifically an April Fools gag. Regardless of whether or not you like them, the whole idea is to present it as straight-faced until it becomes obvious that you’re kidding. That’s different from “Look at this funny parody I made of…”
In my (limited) experience, the majority of April Fools gags I see on the internet are clearly jokes (e.g. Chaosium saying they will release Runequest in a cuneiform version). The “I tricked you!” versions seem increasingly rare to me, probably because a sizeable minority of people don’t really like to be tricked. YMMV, of course.
The “trick” here was revealed rather quickly but, different strokes yadda yadda. If someone just dislikes that sort of thing, there’s no accommodations possible short of ruining it for anyone else since the “trick” is baked into the concept.
suggestion: end it after about 60 seconds of blank black screen with no audio. Leave the people watching to figure out where the prank is, waiting for a gag that never comes. Or after the blank video add 5 seconds of rickroll. 
I think you’re onto something there @hogarth.
1950s (date’s a WAG, don’t get hung up on it specifically) humor was a lot more deliberately mean-spirited. Whether it was attacking an ethnicity or a mannerism or something, it was often skewering the hapless Other.
And April Fools was the ne plus ultra of those. Lots of April Fools jokes or pranks bordered on, or were simply purely, bullying played for laffs. Laffs for everyone except the chosen victim that is.
Now in our modern era Others and victims of whatever stripe are far more likely to not only protest their abuse, but to get a hearing from others. Which hearing may be sympathetic or anti-sympathetic depending on one’s politics, but at least their concerns are not simply ignored.
So at least for people and organizations concerned about not being judged a bullying a**hole, the classic genre of April Fools is too outre to run with any more.
Sadly in our polarized world, that which is outre for one side is often viewed as pure delicious catnip on the other.
Why someone doesn’t find it funny IMO is irrelevant. You could make a joke about sushi and someone might not find it funny because their father choked to death on a maki roll. Is that different from someone who didn’t like the joke because they don’t know what sushi is? Sure, but in the end I don’t think it matters much.
Yeah, I suppose you’re right. Some of the people who didn’t find it funny are newcomers, who simply didn’t know the context (the video is basically playing to some inside jokes, memes and quirks of the channel) I suppose it wouldn’t be all that different if someone had requested that I first explain all the back story material so they could appreciate the inside jokes.
Count me as another who says “good on you for thinking about it, and it’s an interesting discussion, but some things just can’t be made accessible to everyone”. Wheelchair users are never going to be able to experience, in person (or at least, in their chair) the view from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, for example.
None of that means we shouldn’t try when it is possible, just inconvenient, of course. But you have to draw a line somewhere.
Perhaps the appropriate accessibility option is to get another youtuber to do a reaction video to your joke video, and explain each bit of the joke. Choose the new host carefully, because it could easily descend into making fun of the people that need the explanation, instead of making fun of reaction videos or the original video.
Explaining the joke is why sites like Explain XKCD exist. Sometimes the cuts are just too deep, and an explainer is needed. It really needs to come after the joke, though.
We’re not talking about buckets of water perched on a door frame or telling someone they’re fired at a staff meeting just to laugh at their reaction. A video that changes direction from what you thought it would be isn’t the creator laughing at how they “got” you since they’ll never see you. Also they have a vested interest in not telling their viewers “Haha, you’re dumb and stupid”.
In any event, the issue here doesn’t seem so much with “I don’t like that sort of thing” and more with some (probably slim) number of people who literally cannot get the joke due to either missing context or neurodivergance. And, even in the case of context, it should be obvious very early on that it’s not a serious video based on the content. You might not “get” it but you can decide that it’s not for you with no cost but a minute wasted on Youtube.
Yeah, in this particular case, I’m inviting people to laugh along with me, and also sort of laugh at me.
Oh, for God’s sake! It was your thing and you presented it the way you wanted to present it. Take it or leave it, people! 
The 21st century’s most prolific “religion”, especially in this nation, is “Neo-Aristotelianism”. All followers of this “religion” truly believe the entire universe revolves around them.
The modern, acceptable April’s Fool joke is about tricking someone into thinking your the Fool.
In terms of the OP, I think it’s okay to treat these sort of issues like personal or aesthetic choices, even if they’re driven by something serious. If you’re offering a service to the public, you have an ethical duty to make sure everyone can access the service (within reason, of course, and there’s lots of room to debate what’s reasonable). But you don’t have an ethical duty to make sure everyone likes what you offer. If you own a bike shop, you should make sure your shop is wheelchair accessible, but you’re not required to sell special bikes that wheelchair users can use. As a business owner, though, you might want to consider that there’s an untapped market there.
As a content creator, it’s worth evaluating feedback to see if there’s a way to make your stuff more broadly appealing, but you’re never going to appeal to everyone. You’re not ethically required to cater to someone’s taste just because their tastes are shaped by something with a medical diagnosis.