[JOSS Review] Doc Improvements

[gomezzz]

Looking at the docs, I think there are some small improvements I would suggest to help users find information:

• The docs page at https://automl.github.io/amltk/latest/ seems to miss some of the essential information provided in the README (e.g. installation instructions, minimal working example). I would suggest to mirror the readme into, e.g., the Home part of the docs or at least point to the readme for those instructions.
• Please mention in the README and/or contribution guideline that GitHub issues should be used for support inquiries, bug reports etc. (This is the case, right?)
• (optional) For me, the distinction between guides and examples in the docs is not immediately clear, maybe there are better names? Similarly the reference also looks a lot like the API. I don't know if you use some automated to make sure they stay synchronized? Otherwise, it seems that this may quickly lead to one of the two becoming out-of-date.
• From an ML standpoint, I think, it would be great if you could provide an overview of frameworks you can interface with. I think this is partially done here https://github.com/automl/amltk/?tab=readme-ov-file#installation but I am not sure if it is exhaustive? Maybe reformulate to clarify if this the full list of supported frameworks?

(opened as part of JOSS Review openjournals/joss-reviews#6367 )

[eddiebergman]

Hi @gomezzz,

Thanks for the feedback! The docs definitely need some refresh in love but to answer some of the points:

• Yup I think some quick install makes sense on the docs homepage.
• Definitely should mention github as the source of issues/feedback, will do.
• I agree there's too much and I was looking at Textual as inspiration:
  • API: API doc autogenerated
  • Reference: A hand-written quick summary, i.e. like a cheatsheet
  • Guide: A walkthrough to actually learn about how things work
  • Examples (Admittedly lacking): Copy-and-pastable code with some minor commentary