While it may sound like a good idea, it literally violates the U.S. Air Carrier Access Act and SAS (the airline) was recently fined for doing exactly what you describe[1].
This solution may also create a situation where the accessible website becomes a "second class citizen" in terms of content because managers are not willing to allocate resources to improving the dedicated accessibility-friendly version. I argue it's much better to make a11y a part of the specification process just like we did with the responsive web when we abandoned WAP.
Not only do you run the risk of offending users with disabilities by forcing a separate experience, this also creates a separate code base to maintain and often developers forget to update text-only versions. I've worked in the accessibility space for years and this concept is an idea of the past and likely to generate a lawsuit. Accessibility lawsuits are popping up left and right in the public sector across every business vertical and I would strongly advise against this.
While it may sound like a good idea, it literally violates the U.S. Air Carrier Access Act and SAS (the airline) was recently fined for doing exactly what you describe[1].
This solution may also create a situation where the accessible website becomes a "second class citizen" in terms of content because managers are not willing to allocate resources to improving the dedicated accessibility-friendly version. I argue it's much better to make a11y a part of the specification process just like we did with the responsive web when we abandoned WAP.
[1]: https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dot7418