<!--IssueSummary start--> <details> <summary> Everyone can contribute. [Help move this issue forward](https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/developer-relations/contributor-success/community-contributors-workflows/#contributor-links) while earning points, leveling up and collecting rewards. </summary> - [Close this issue](https://contributors.gitlab.com/manage-issue?action=close&projectId=278964&issueIid=229189) </details> <!--IssueSummary end--> <!-- The first four sections: "Problem to solve", "Intended users", "User experience goal", and "Proposal", are strongly recommended, while the rest of the sections can be filled out during the problem validation or breakdown phase. However, keep in mind that providing complete and relevant information early helps our product team validate the problem and start working on a solution. --> ### Problem to solve <!-- What problem do we solve? Try to define the who/what/why of the opportunity as a user story. For example, "As a (who), I want (what), so I can (why/value)." --> The user has a nested tasklist like so: ``` - [ ] Task A - [ ] Task A.1 - [ ] Task A.2 - [ ] Task A.3 - [ ] Task B ``` The user finishes Task A.1. Task A is now 33% complete. Often, in *plaintext*, users might show this with something like the following: <table> <td> ``` - [-] Task A - [x] Task A.1 - [ ] Task A.2 - [ ] Task A.3 - [ ] Task B ``` </td> <td> ``` - [*] Task A - [x] Task A.1 - [ ] Task A.2 - [ ] Task A.3 - [ ] Task B ``` </td> <td> ``` - [o] Task A - [x] Task A.1 - [ ] Task A.2 - [ ] Task A.3 - [ ] Task B ``` </td> </table> Given that this is already a convention, it'd make sense to make use of it and render a "partially checked" checkbox, instead of just not rendering a checkbox at all, and breaking the flow of the list. If we stick with the above syntax, or even just pick one stub to support, we'll also still preserve markdown's simplistic syntax, and gitlab markdown source will still look just as readable as the HTML render. ### Intended users <!-- Who will use this feature? If known, include any of the following: types of users (e.g. Developer), personas, or specific company roles (e.g. Release Manager). It's okay to write "Unknown" and fill this field in later. Personas are described at https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/ * [Cameron (Compliance Manager)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#cameron-compliance-manager) * [Parker (Product Manager)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#parker-product-manager) * [Delaney (Development Team Lead)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#delaney-development-team-lead) * [Presley (Product Designer)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#presley-product-designer) * [Sasha (Software Developer)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#sasha-software-developer) * [Devon (DevOps Engineer)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#devon-devops-engineer) * [Sidney (Systems Administrator)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#sidney-systems-administrator) * [Sam (Security Analyst)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#sam-security-analyst) * [Rachel (Release Manager)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#rachel-release-manager) * [Alex (Security Operations Engineer)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#alex-security-operations-engineer) * [Simone (Software Engineer in Test)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#simone-software-engineer-in-test) * [Allison (Application Ops)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#allison-application-ops) * [Priyanka (Platform Engineer)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#priyanka-platform-engineer) * [Dana (Data Analyst)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#dana-data-analyst) --> Anyone who might want to have better at-a-glance understanding of which tasks are completed to what degree. Also, people who already currently use this syntax won't have their markdown renders break. ### User experience goal <!-- What is the single user experience workflow this problem addresses? For example, "The user should be able to use the UI/API/.gitlab-ci.yml with GitLab to <perform a specific task>" https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/ux/ux-research-training/user-story-mapping/ --> The user should be able to use at least *some* of the above syntax in markdown source. When rendered, it should be either an empty checkbox at *least*. However, ideally, a partially-checked checkbox would be rendered. Pulling from the example above, we can see that with the current implementation, Task A will just get rendered incorrectly, whereas all the other checkboxes (including the children of Task A, curiously) get rendered fine. - [-] Task A - [x] Task A.1 - [ ] Task A.2 - [ ] Task A.3 - [ ] Task B <details> <summary>View Screenshot for historical accuracy</summary>  </details> ### Proposal <!-- How are we going to solve the problem? Try to include the user journey! https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/journeys/#user-journey --> This [jsfiddle](https://jsfiddle.net/5tpXc/) demonstrates how this might be rendered using html5's `indeterminate` property. Here's a minimal html stub for the same demonstration: ```html <html> <body> <input type="checkbox" id="check"> <label for="check">Partial Checkbox</label> <script> document.getElementById('check').indeterminate = true; </script> </body> </html> ``` When rendered, this gives something like the following screenshot:  <details> <summary>Sections to be filled out during validation or breakdown phase</summary> ### Further details <!-- Include use cases, benefits, goals, or any other details that will help us understand the problem better. --> ### Permissions and Security <!-- What permissions are required to perform the described actions? Are they consistent with the existing permissions as documented for users, groups, and projects as appropriate? Is the proposed behavior consistent between the UI, API, and other access methods (e.g. email replies)? Consider adding checkboxes and expectations of users with certain levels of membership https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/permissions.html * [ ] Add expected impact to members with no access (0) * [ ] Add expected impact to Guest (10) members * [ ] Add expected impact to Reporter (20) members * [ ] Add expected impact to Developer (30) members * [ ] Add expected impact to Maintainer (40) members * [ ] Add expected impact to Owner (50) members --> ### Documentation <!-- See the Feature Change Documentation Workflow https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/documentation/workflow.html#for-a-product-change * Add all known Documentation Requirements in this section. See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/documentation/feature-change-workflow.html#documentation-requirements * If this feature requires changing permissions, update the permissions document. See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/permissions.html --> ### Availability & Testing <!-- This section needs to be retained and filled in during the workflow planning breakdown phase of this feature proposal, if not earlier. What risks does this change pose to our availability? How might it affect the quality of the product? What additional test coverage or changes to tests will be needed? Will it require cross-browser testing? Please list the test areas (unit, integration and end-to-end) that needs to be added or updated to ensure that this feature will work as intended. Please use the list below as guidance. * Unit test changes * Integration test changes * End-to-end test change See the test engineering planning process and reach out to your counterpart Software Engineer in Test for assistance: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/quality/test-engineering/#test-planning --> ### What does success look like, and how can we measure that? <!-- Define both the success metrics and acceptance criteria. Note that success metrics indicate the desired business outcomes, while acceptance criteria indicate when the solution is working correctly. If there is no way to measure success, link to an issue that will implement a way to measure this. --> ### What is the type of buyer? <!-- What is the buyer persona for this feature? See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/buyer-persona/ In which enterprise tier should this feature go? See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/pricing/#four-tiers --> ### Is this a cross-stage feature? <!-- Communicate if this change will affect multiple Stage Groups or product areas. We recommend always start with the assumption that a feature request will have an impact into another Group. Loop in the most relevant PM and Product Designer from that Group to provide strategic support to help align the Group's broader plan and vision, as well as to avoid UX and technical debt. https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/#cross-stage-features --> ### Links / references </details>