Experiments and Type Response

In the reading I like how they refer to the experimental type as something as a sort of practice and process. The reading declares it as a testing of sorts. It also states that when the testing is completed and a final product is chosen for a practical use that it is no longer experimental. This analysis is something that I can appreciate, but I think that for this reading and for the idea of the work "experiment" a broader understanding and conceptualization is needed. I think that as a generality, an "experiment" should be looked at as a test of sorts. In the reading, some of the perspectives portrayed suggest that by the definition of the word "experiment", experimental type and art can't really exist. The reasoning for this being that no values are recorded and the information learned isn't empirical. This is kind of ridiculous in my own opinion. By definition, sure this perspective is correct, but I think a broader comprehension of the word experiment needs to be observed. Language, although maybe not always considered proper, can be used in some illustrative ways. Using the term experiment for testing ideas in design and typography I think is totally suitable as a metaphor of sorts. I totally understand the use of  experimental when describing type. It is testing formal qualities of the type. The success and information discovered may not be recordable but the test, the essence of the experiment, is still present. Words are arbitrary as far as I'm concerned anyway.