Help Wanted: Tables aren't consistently formatted

[cwarnermm]

The product docs source code uses a few different types of syntax for table-based content which applies inconsistent default CSS look & feel across the site.

Examples:

• https://docs.mattermost.com/about/faq-product.html#what-features-are-available-on-different-mattermost-clients
• https://docs.mattermost.com/configure/calls-deployment.html#modes-of-operation
• https://docs.mattermost.com/upgrade/important-upgrade-notes.html

Goal: Provide a standard way to display all table-based content site wide.

1. Investigate pros & cons of each approach.
2. Align on a single standard approach.
3. Work with UX to ensure that table formatting is sufficiently easy to scan/read, particularly in cases where tables are complex, such as the Important Upgrade Notes page.

[cwarnermm]

Network table is weirdly large

[cwarnermm]

https://pradyunsg.me/furo/reference/tables/

[Pranavram22]

looks simple I wanna work on this

[TomerPacific]

@cwarnermm - I'd like to help here, but I think that there is a need to understand if certain pages that have tables, can be converted to not having them.
What I mean by that is, say that we agree on a specific format, regardless of what that format is, some tables (like this one) make it harder to understand the data rather than making it plain.

Would you be open to discussing this? Is there a specific channel this would be best suited to be discussed? Possibly with the UX team?

[cwarnermm]

@TomerPacific - Very open to discussing further. This issue has multiple parts.

One top-of-mind issue is that our current Sphinx theme limits the amount of horizontal space available in the center pane, which results in tables longer than the maximum requiring horizontal scrolling to view (which isn't ideal for users).

Another key part of this issue is identifying which table syntax is best for both contributors maintaining the code base as well as users viewing the details in the published product docs. Each syntax approach has pros and cons.

I'm curious to hear more about your thoughts on how the product feature breakdown table format currently makes it harder to understand the details. What about the table is causing issues for you? And what would you recommend as an alternative way format, if not a table-based approach?