[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#93963 update workspace member role filtering UI

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Companion help-site update for #93963, which updates the tables filter bar (always-visible search bar, a Filters button, and active filters rendered as chips).

The Managing Workspace Members article described the old role-filtering UI ("Click the role filter dropdown at the top of the member list" and an All members default option). This updates the Filter Workspace Members by Role section to match the new UI:

• Filters are now opened via the Filters button.
• Roles are multi-select — there is no longer an All members option.
• Selected roles appear as filter chips; clear one by clicking the X on its chip.
• Added the People Admins role option (Control workspaces) to match the current UI.

What was reviewed

I reviewed all files changed in E/A#93963 (a UI/style change to the shared Table filter bar and its migrated tables — members, company cards, categories, tags, etc.) against docs/articles. The only help-site content describing the changed UI in a way that is now inaccurate was the member role-filter section. Other tables (e.g. company cards assigned/unassigned filter) are not documented with UI-level filtering steps, so no other articles required changes.

Fixed Issues

Related to #93963

Tests / QA

Documentation-only change. Verify the rendered article reflects the current members filtering UI:

• Go to Workspaces > [Workspace Name] > Members, click Filters, select one or more roles, confirm each appears as a chip and clears via its X.

---

@JS00001, please review the files changed and confirm they reflect the current behavior. Then mark this PR Ready for review.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment
This PR is a focused, documentation-only update to the Filter Workspace Members by Role section of Managing-Workspace-Members.md, aligning it with the new tables filter bar UI from E/A 93963. It replaces the old dropdown-based role filter with the new Filters button, multi-select role chips, and the removal of the All members default. The changes are accurate, well-scoped, and consistent with the actual UI.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Steps are sequential and action-oriented; the chip and removal behavior is explained clearly and concisely.
• AI Readiness: 8/10 - Role labels use full, UI-exact feature names and the multi-select behavior is described in searchable, unambiguous language. (Note: the section heading and internalScope frontmatter are pre-existing and outside this diff, so not scored here.)
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - Strong adherence to naming conventions: the Filters button, role names, and the X chip control are all bolded and use exact Sentence-case UI text. The vague old phrasing (the role filter dropdown at the top of the member list) was correctly replaced with the exact Filters button reference, resolving a prohibited-language issue.

Key Findings

• Positive: The change swaps paraphrased UI for the exact Filters button label, satisfying the Core UI Referencing and Prohibited Language rules.
• Positive: All role options and the X chip control are consistently bolded per Button/Toggle naming standards.
• Positive: Adds the missing People Admins and Members role options, matching the current UI.
• Positive: Multi-select behavior and chip removal are explained accurately, and the empty-state message is preserved verbatim.
• Minor: Step 2 (Click Filters) includes no web/mobile navigation phrasing. If the filter interaction differs across platforms, consider the Navigation Instruction Standards; if identical, the current wording is fine.

Recommendations

• No blocking issues in the proposed changes. Safe to merge from a governance standpoint.
• Optional: Confirm whether the Filters interaction is identical on web and mobile; if not, add platform-specific guidance per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md.
• Optional (out of diff scope): A future cleanup could align this file H1 section headings with the single-H1 plus task-based heading rules and add internalScope to the frontmatter, but these are pre-existing and not part of this proposal.

Files Reviewed

• Managing-Workspace-Members.md - Approved. Accurate, well-scoped update to the role-filtering section with strong style compliance.

Note: Detailed line-by-line feedback has been provided as inline comments.

[stephanieelliott]

Approved, but will merge this tomorrow when the change hits prod!

[stephanieelliott]

Had to commit to fix a conflict -- adding Pullerbear to assign someone for merge

[melvin-bot]

Concierge reviewer checklist:

• I have verified the accuracy of the article
  • The article is within a hub that makes sense, and the navigation is correct
  • All processes, screenshots, and examples align with current product behavior.
  • All links within the doc have been verified for correct destination and functionality.
• I have verified the readability of the article
  • The article's language is clear, concise, and free of jargon.
  • The grammar, spelling, and punctuation are correct.
  • The article contains at least one image, or that an image is not necessary
• I have verified the formatting of the article
  • The article has consistent formatting (headings, bullet points, etc.) with other HelpDot articles and that aligns with the HelpDot formatting standards.
  • The article has proper text spacing and breaks for readability.
• I have verified the article has the appropriate tone and style
  • The article's tone is professional, friendly, and suitable for the target audience.
  • The article's tone, terminology, and voice are consistent throughout.
• I have verified the overall quality of the article
  • The article is not missing any information, nor does it contain redundant information.
  • The article fully addresses user needs.
• I have verified that all requested improvements have been addressed

For more detailed instructions on completing this checklist, see How do I review a HelpDot PR as a Concierge Team member?

cc @bfitzexpensify

[melvin-bot]

@bfitzexpensify Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://096627ff.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Managing-Workspace-Members

[stephanieelliott]

Little bump @bfitzexpensify

[bfitzexpensify]

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
• I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: HybridApp
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: HybridApp
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari