Should "make checklist" option add checkbox to parent item?

đź“‹ Polls
#1
  • Yes (current behavior)
  • No (only children items get checkboxes)
  • Toggleable between the two above behaviors with an option

0 voters

Show results
2 Likes
New checklist behavior?
"Make checklist" turns node itself into a checklist
#2

Can I suggest two other poll options?

c. A new user setting / preference.

d. An extra keyboard shortcut / hamburger menu item:

  • Make checklist (parent and children)
    (Existing menu item could be renamed to something like: Make checklist (only children)
#3

Added option c.

These two behaviors are not different enough to become two menu options in my opinion though. Got any use cases in mind where a user wants to use both of these at the same time?

#4

None use case comes to my mind.
In fact I tend to prefer maximum flexibility in general from a user point of view, although I know this results in greater difficulties to design a good UX and to test things.

1 Like
#5

I would actually prefer to have the parent node not appear as a check box. some how it visually throws off the look of an outline.

However, I can say that it is useful at times to have it as a checkbox for those time when you do complete all the sub tasks. So Ideally, it would be nice to be able to toggle this on and off.

Thanks,
Chris

#6

Yeah, I agree.

The behavior has existed since the beginning of Dynalist though, so somehow I must have gotten familiar with it in a weird way :wink:

1 Like
#7

This isn’t part of the current poll, but my wish is to be able make a parent item that has a checkbox with out the children all getting checkboxes. I’ve taken to using highlight colors instead of checkboxes because of this issue.

1 Like
#8

@Alan this is interesting and well stated. I think it reflects that just having more ability to customize the checklist is nice. I also like the idea of having non checkable items below a checkable parent node.

I do have to say I like the current mode as a “Default” for the creation of new checklists, but then the ability to toggle each node independently of the parent node would provide the most flexibility.

#9

@erica Wow, I see this feature is now working. Thanks for quickly implementing it!

#10

Which feature? :hushed:

#11

Is this feature planned?
It seems that the poll was very conclusive on not maintaining the current behavior.

1 Like
#12

Yep, the poll was pretty conclusive and it’s on our list of todos.

Thanks for the heads-up! :hugs:

2 Likes
#13

Yay we’re over 2/3 majority voting for the change. I would like this change! :slight_smile: I avoid checklists entirely because of the danger of accidentally tapping the parent check and obliterating the list. Checkless parent would make it much better. Even just any way to manually hide the parent checkbox would be great (while retaining the new child inheritance of checkbox)

1 Like
#14

A custom CSS can likely accomplish that, but we want to fix it in the default Dynalist :slight_smile:

#15

thanks thats good info

I gave the CSS fix a shot, but don’t know enough CSS to do it

anyone clever?

basically what i think i want codewise (to do what the poll voted for):
if a node has is-checklist is-parent
then i want the first <div class="Node-checkbox"></div> within that node to exist but not show up (nor take up any space)

#16

It was a pain but I figured it out:

.Node:not(.is-checklist) > .Node-children > .Node-outer > .Node.is-checklist > .Node-self > .Node-checkbox {
	display: none;
}

It was a pain because from looking at the CSS classes, the parent and the children are identical. So I’m just hiding the first level altogether now, assuming you’re not adding checkbox on a per-item basis.

1 Like
#17

Yaaaaaay!

thank you Erica

It’s beautiful :sob:

1 Like
#18

I was working on this and it occurred to me that it might break things for a lot of people. Namely, people who:

  1. Didn’t know how to properly make a checklist and just select all the child items and make them checklists;
  2. Know how to properly use a checklist but still wanted discontinuous items with checkboxes.

So now I’m inclined to make the hidden behavior optional… What do you guys think? Do you think the two use cases above are worth considering?

#19

Is there a way to make the CSS only hide the checkbox when .is-parent?

That way if it’s a childless item, the checkbox shows.

I think that would work ideal. It would mean “only children items get checkboxes” just as the vote said. And it would work as those 2 last examples expect too.

#20

What effect would this have on grandchildren and beyond? Is everything under the node still a checkbox, or only its immediate children?