Skip Collins <skip.coll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a couple of problems with the way checkboxes are typeset in LaTeX.
>
> - [ ] a
> - [X] b
> - [-] c
>
> is translated to the LaTeX
>
> \begin{itemize}
> \item $\Box$ a
> \item $\boxtimes$ b
> \item $\boxminus$ c
> \end{itemize}
>
> The first problem is that \Box is not the same size as \boxtimes or \boxminus
> .
> The correct symbol to use from the amssymb package is \square which
> matches the other two symbols.
>
> Another problem is that these symbols were intended to be mathematical
> binary operators, and are therefore rather small for the purposes of a
> checkbox. I suggest that LaTeX output could be modified to something
> like:
>
> \setbox0=\hbox{\LARGE$\square$}
> \begin{itemize}
> \item {\parbox[][][c]{\wd0}{\LARGE$\square$}} a
> \item {\parbox[][][c]{\wd0}{\LARGE$\boxtimes$}} b
> \item {\parbox[][][c]{\wd0}{\LARGE$\boxminus$}} c
> \end{itemize}
>
> The parbox ensures that the checkbox is nicely centered with the first
> line of text.
>
> Another nice-to-have feature would be to use the checkbox as a label
> for list items in non-enumerated lists. Currently, the list bullet
> appears as visual clutter next to the checkbox.
>
I like it! Well, almost all of it: I'd vote for \large, rather than \LARGE,
but otherwise it looks good to me.
Also, the nice-to-have feature is very easy to implement. All it needs is
a pair of square brackets around the box:
,----
| \item [{\parbox[][][c]{\wd0}{\LARGE$\square$}}] a
`----
The \setbox can go into the preamble btw.
Nick
