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 
1 Like
This isnāt 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. Iāve taken to using highlight colors instead of checkboxes because of this issue.
1 Like
@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 āDefaultā for the creation of new checklists, but then the ability to toggle each node independently of the parent node would provide the most flexibility.
Which feature? 
Is this feature planned?
It seems that the poll was very conclusive on not maintaining the current behavior.
1 Like
Yep, the poll was pretty conclusive and itās on our list of todos.
Thanks for the heads-up! 
2 Likes
Yay weāre over 2/3 majority voting for the change. I would like this change! 
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
A custom CSS can likely accomplish that, but we want to fix it in the default Dynalist
thanks thats good info
I gave the CSS fix a shot, but donāt 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)
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 Iām just hiding the first level altogether now, assuming youāre not adding checkbox on a per-item basis.
1 Like
Yaaaaaay!
thank you Erica
Itās beautiful 
1 Like
I was working on this and it occurred to me that it might break things for a lot of people. Namely, people who:
- Didnāt know how to properly make a checklist and just select all the child items and make them checklists;
- Know how to properly use a checklist but still wanted discontinuous items with checkboxes.
So now Iām inclined to make the hidden behavior optionalā¦ What do you guys think? Do you think the two use cases above are worth considering?
Is there a way to make the CSS only hide the checkbox when .is-parent?
That way if itās a childless item, the checkbox shows.
I think that would work ideal. It would mean āonly children items get checkboxesā just as the vote said. And it would work as those 2 last examples expect too.
What effect would this have on grandchildren and beyond? Is everything under the node still a checkbox, or only its immediate children?
it propagates to all generations of children currently
paste the css to try it
No effect on grandchildren. Everything except for the parent will still have a checkbox.
Does that answer your question?
I made a little edit to Ericas CSS:
.Node:not(.is-checklist) > .Node-children > .Node-outer > .Node.is-checklist >
.Node-self.is-parent > .Node-checkbox {
display: none;
}
Now it only hides the checkbox if children exist to carry the checkbox burden. In other words, lone parent items get a checkbox, because thatās probably what a user wants in that scenario.
Hereās what happens if you select a,b,c,d and make them checklists
I wish e and f hid the checkbox too but honestly i think people dont make checklists that deep so theyll probably forgive it
1 Like
No effect on grandchildren. Everything except for the parent will still have a checkbox.
Does that answer your question?
Yes it does, thank you!
1 Like
