Hi, @Shubh, I’ve been adding books to BB for some months now, but only tried the unified form recently (I wanted to get used to the (current) normal workflow to make sure I don’t miss anything and have a point of comparison.
First of all, I have to say this was great work. The new form makes adding an edition much, much easier. The new workflow is much more intuitive and much faster than adding each entity separately. Especially for editions with many works (such as poetry/short story collections) this is incomparably better and faster.
I did notice some issues. The most important for me is also the simplest: this should not be called adding a book. There are no “books” on BookBrainz; there are editions, edition groups and works. For a user to be useful member of this project, he needs to understand what these terms mean here before adding an edition. If you start out by adding a book and then there is no mention of a book in the form and no resulting book once you’re done, that’s just confusing for a newbie and not useful for experienced users. This is basically like adding a release in MB, if it was called a “record” or an“ album” on the main menu just because these are more common terms, adding a release would be much more confusing.
Basically, these concepts are hard to understand at first, and, if we’re not consistent, everything can get very confusing.
Also the first tab is called “cover” which can lead the user to think they’re meant to add only the information they find on the book cover, although some of the information there don’t appear on the cover (such as IDs) and the cover isn’t even the best place to find this information. If the idea is just to have a tab for the basic information, something like “Basic info” would do. (“Edition” would also work).
Other issues (IMHO):
- It’s not possible to add the type of the edition group, which results in edition groups always being created without a type. (This is already a problem with the current ed. creation form). In fact, there’s not a lot of information to add on the ed. group creation page, the same fields can easily be added here and we could avoid always having to go back and edit the ed. group to add at least the type.
- Also, sometimes the ed. group may have a title that is different from the edition’s, which makes it impossible to add here. It would be nice to to have the title pre-filled when creating a new one, but you should be able to change it.
- The option to add all the works to a series seems a bit strange. Is it that common that you need to add all the works in an edition to a series? Since we are creating an edition, it would make more sense to have the option to add the edition to a series, but that’s not an option on the form.
- “Copy Authors from Author Credit” sounds a bit awkward, too technical, “copy author entity from Author Credit field”… A more natural (and clear for non-technical users) wording would be something like “Work author(s) is the same as the editions’s author(s)”. But what if it isn’t the same for one or more (or all) works? Then you need to be careful to deselect it (or you will add the wrong author by accident) and add the author as relation when creating the work. It feels a bit strange and likely to leading to mistakes. Wouldn’t it be more natural to simply have an Author field on the work creation popup? Isn’t that what most people would expect, to be asked about the author when creating a work? (The field can be pre-filled with the edition author(s), or have a check-box to select the edition author, that would be useful.)
- When selecting a work, the author of the work doesn’t show on the options list, which makes it easy to select a work with a similar name by a different author. Worse, there is no way to open the work to make sure it is the correct work and not another one with the same or a similar name.
- Once you add a work, it’s impossible to re-edit it, even if you realize you made a mistake.
- The sort name input box is too short, it literally only fits four characters.
On the new entities report (last tab):
- Work-Type, format and status show as an ID (e.g. Work-Type: 5; format: 3) which is not useful to review.
- “Type: EditionGroup” has no space (probably also an ID). Not a big issue, but doesn’t look good.
- First line of the edition group entity is “Type: EditionGroup”, first line of the work entity is “Type: Work”, but there is no “Type: Edition” for the edition entity. It would actually be clearer if Edition Group/Work/Edition showed as headers, instead of this “key: value” format.
- “Release-date:” (note, also no space) is in the format “+YYYYYY-MM-YY” (six-digit year), which is readable but not appropriate for end-users to review.
- Edition Group is always shown on the new entities report even if it isn’t new. It should only show as a relationship on the edition entity, since it’s not being created.
- The first time I tried to use this form only 5 work entities were shown even though the edition had many more. Other times, more than 5 showed, so I’m not sure sure what was the problem. Maybe there a limit to number of works and it only shows 5 if it’s above it?
Don’t get me wrong, I do think this form is huge improvement to the workflow, I never went back to creating the entities separately and I hope I never have to. I’m just being thorough, since it doesn’t seem we will get much more feedback here.