A friction point in the promotion workflow — the long version

On the subject in the title: A friction point in the promotion workflow — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion.

Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons.

The topic in question keeps being re-asked, has a good marked solution, and contains a worked example that would be more useful on a page with a review date than buried in a reply. That is exactly the promotion criterion as written.

Objections welcome and genuinely wanted — the whole point of discussing promotions in public is that a bad promotion is harder to undo than a bad reply.

Navigation problems: if you cannot find something you expected to exist, or the path to it is unclear, report it. Site architecture affects usability.

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

Worth separating two things that post #2 runs together.

Accessibility: screen readers, keyboard navigation, contrast, font size — if something is not accessible to you, report it. Accessibility matters.

Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first.

Performance: if pages are slow to load, timeouts occur, or the site is unresponsive, that is worth reporting with details (when, which pages, how slow).

Coming back to post #4, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Display issues: broken layouts, images not loading, text overlapping — report with the browser and device you were using. Display bugs are platform-specific.