After a forced migration from Data Center to Cloud at our company, it is deeply disappointing to come across limitations such as this one. Pages that used to render perfectly fine and fill the width of the user's screen are now forced to have a bunch of white space on either side. 

Does Atlassian even use their own tools? 

Do they listen to their customers? 

This ticket has been open for more than 5 years; how does Atlassian management think that is at all acceptable?

This should absolutely be a bug, not a suggestion. "Intentional design decision" to leave anybody who uses a decent size monitor with a TON of white space on either side of a narrow channel of text, is bordering on insanity.

Please, try and actually use your product in a way that your users would, and see that a table with any more than 10 columns completely shrinks the width of columns down to the point where text is not readable, i.e. 1 word per line. How is this acceptable and "intended"?

What's funnier is zooming out also shrinks the width of the table, leaving even more white space on each side.

How have you got this so drastically wrong?

Why not allowing 3 types of page widths?

• Standard
• Wider (the today's "Full-Width", which isn't one)
• Full-Width (a REAL full width)

Shouldn't be that difficult to implement, right?

"Aid in readability" is a cheap excuse. Fix your product. 

"The issue type has been changed from a bug to a suggestion because the issue is an intentional design decision.  The width of content is limited to aid in readability."

There are a lot of highly talented people using these tools and best practices usually come from bottom-up and daily usage. How about letting the Content Creator experts decide whats best for them, and their users? 

Unless there is some industry study that suggest that huge empty spaces improves readability based on eye movements and brain scans, please let the experts work as best they know, not the best the design team can imagine.

Thank you @John, yes I've made sure to create an empty template using the old trusty editor.

However, the problem applies to everybody's content in our organisation, and it's disappointing that we have to resort to hacks to make our pages readable

@Rolf, there is a dirty hack that some folks have found allows them to keep using the old editor for things it's better at like large tables.  If you have any pages that were built with the old editor (assuming you didn't mass convert everything to the new editor), you can copy one of those, delete all content, then save it as a "template" of sorts.  Copy it for any new page you want to create with big tables.

Don't understand this design decision at all either. Why should the content not simply expand to fit the width of whatever device is being used? I don’t see any purpose whatsoever in limiting the width of the content, as users can adjust their window size to suit their own needs anyway.

We have recently migrated to the cloud version and are struggling with using large tables in Confluence now. Most of my colleagues are facing similar issues and it’s so disappointing that the cloud version has limitations and is more difficult to use than the old version (page width is just one example). I’m concerned that fewer people in our organization will be using Confluence because of these difficulties, which will be a real shame as the tool has been brilliant for us so far, prior to migrating to cloud.

@Atlassian - any progress here????

This BUG is super annoying because we use a lot of large tables that require more space than the offered "full width" option.

This should be low-hanging fruit...

...I just stumbled on this: "The width of content is limited to aid in readability."

Have you ever tried to read a table cell with the content of each cell spreading vertically over 10 to 15 lines???

It is quite the opposite: the table becomes totally unreadable.

I can get on board with the entire page not expanding to full width for readability (although I would argue that should be up to the user because you already have formats that keep the content in a thinner column), but this should not be the case for tables.

For tables, the whole point of being able to zoom out (or have very wide monitors) is to be able to see the entire table without horizontal scrolling.  I'll admit that tables aren't the sole focus of this issue, but they should be allowed to go truly full width.  There are other table-related issues floating around out there, but assuming none are specifically about truly full width tables, perhaps this one could be changed to focus the issue on tables at full width.