Is this the correct format to raise a change request for the documentation? In earlier versions, it was possible to see a complete list of all icons available for a!richTextIcon on a single page, this made finding the appropriate icon visually quite easy. (See: https://docs.appian.com/suite/help/20.4/Styled_Icon_Component.html)
The newer style of documentation has taken the approach of nesting pages of icons making it impossible to find what you're looking for visually. It's easy to use if you know the name of the icon you're looking for but for those of us who haven't memorized the naming scheme it becomes extremely tedious.
Who is going to click scroll through 22 pages of icons?
The same documentaiton is referenced by the a!stampField() page. While the preview window in the interface editor does show the icons, it is small, doesn't display many icons at once and is tedious to use when the icons are nested in loops. In addition, this doesn't solve the problem of the documentation not acting as an effective reference for the component.
Does anyone else agree or am I just being pedantic?
Discussion posts and replies are publicly visible
Additionally and tangentially, depending on where you look, the documentation offered for available icons is a completely different link, which offers the same list of icons but much less leading and trailing "fluff". I kinda wish the two different versions of this page were cross-linked to each other.
docs.appian.com/.../ux_styled_icons.html