Hi! First of all, thanks for your work and the ability to test a new editor!
I want to share feedback about checkboxes’ behavior in the new editor.
Right now Bear has strikethrough font style in checked items.
And new one has other styling with light grey and without strikethrough:
As someone who is particularly colorblind, I vastly prefer the release edition’s strikethrough to the alternate colors! I could easily see how, in many color schemes, the new implementation would become very unclear.
Hello there and welcome!
We have removed the strike-through line to be more consistent with the represented underline markdown
The baz line would be the striked-through version of the marked checkbox
@ehler your concern is correct and we are very mindful about usability. Probably this could be an accessibility preference inside Bear.
Thank you! We will discuss it internally 
Ah, I see, wanting to maintain the ability to have a strike-through independent of checkbox state certainly makes sense with the rest of the styling goals you’re trying to achieve.
I don’t know that I have a great solution to suggest with that in mind; even if it’s less accessible, I certainly think that the consistency is really desirable to maintain. And if you were to put in an accessibility setting, would it automatically trigger the the tildes around the text in that line? Not sure if that would be a desirable behavior, or if the opposite would be, or if it’s a no-win. Maybe the best solution is just to be really mindful of font colors here, and maybe an override accessibility setting for font color contrast when you allow greater user customization of themes?
In my mind (but it was just a one minute thinking without brainstorming with the whole team) the accessibility setting would not add the tildes, because I see accessibility as an over-layer on the UI to make everything more accessible. But then again - this is just an idea.
Usually when we create new themes we try to be aware of the contrast using Color Contrast Analysing tools and plugins. We will try to do the same for the new version of themes, but in some cases we understand that it is a very subtle and subjective line to cross.
My own theme preference strongly reflects the fact that I’m colorblind (and like OLED dark modes). I use Dieci on my iPhone and Panic Mode on macOS. Some of the syntax highlighting within codeblocks has been less-than-ideal, but other than that, I’ve liked the contrast and visibility best of the different dark mode themes. When you offer so many great themes, it’s reasonable for someone color blind to make sure to pick one that works well with their particular colorblindness. I haven’t gone through and spent a lot of time on each theme, but none jumped out at me as inaccessible.
That said, it’s an easy line to cross without realizing it. Instapaper’s OLED dark mode makes the link color TOTALLY imperceptible to me. The rest of their modes are fine, but I so prefer OLED dark mode that I find it to be a real issue personally. The current distinction in Panda’s dark theme is readable, but comes off as a bit more subtle than ideal IMO. Will enjoy testing it with my regular themes when they become usable in the testing process.
Potential suggestion: Make them function like Apple Notes. An incomplete todo would just be a hollow/unfilled square, whereas a completed one would become checked and filled. This would enable the user to use whatever kind of formatting they wanted on the todo text itself.
I don‘t understand why one needs two indications for a completed TODO, a checkmark and strikethrough. Wouldn’t be one more than enough? I would prefer a checkmark.
The idea to fill the box and to use a checkmark could really add some functionality:
Empty box = Action has not being started yet.
Checked box = Action has started.
Filled and checked box = Action completed
Hi there,
in our opinion that’s a wrong way to present TODOs: if we fill completed checkboxes they will be more visible that the incomplete ones.
Our idea is to make completed TODOs “disappear” when you scan your list as you probably don’t need to interact with those anymore and give more focus on what you still need to do.
Best.
Markdown has only two state checkboxes, we can’t really add another state to it 
I’m a big fan of using strikethrough for checked off lists. To me it makes a todo’s state unambiguous and completely clear no matter where I look (think of list items that span multiple lines). But I’m definitely game for other ideas, like the fading in Panda beta.
That said, there are many different text colors (plain, marked, links, code) each different for the 18 different Bear themes, so making a checked-off faded version (different from incomplete todo, but still readable) of each of those seems like a big task.
I dislike strikethrough for completed items because it’s too “loud”. While it makes it abundantly clear what items have been completed, it destroys the readability of completed items during later review. It also draws my attention far more than I prefer.
I like the approach of letting the CHECK (and subsequent fading of text) to communicate completion.
If there was a way for the strikethrough to somehow be less glaring I would be willing to consider it again, but otherwise I like the new direction that removes automatic strikethrough for completed checklist items.
Another vote for the strikethrough. I can’t visually process what is and isn’t done without this.
Another another vote for strikethrough. I’m surprised to see Panda mess with something that works perfectly in Bear. Seems like this maybe should be a preference later as time allows?
On this topic, Panda iOS also breaks auto-capitalization of new checkbox items, something that Bear does correctly (as noted in my earlier issue)
Another vote for strikethrough - on the iOS app there is now no differentiation between checkboxes with links that are checked off.
Feint strike throughs are much better if you plan to use the app to see what items are done
Yes. Would be nice in settings to be able to choose how you wanted it displayed. Either greyed out or strike-through.
