Bil'ak + Triggs Responses

What did you think of these readings?

When I began reading both Bil'ak and Triggs, I felt like it had some intellectual reasoning towards experimental type with having set rules where the variable could possibly change in the process. Both readings, they talked about how experimenting is in other words a 'research method.'

Does their definition of "experimental" match what you previously thought of the term?

I did like the way Triggs worded the definition of experimental, meaning 'taking risks and viewing those risks as a crucial to the development of the process.' I do feel like you can go into an experiment and think one idea is going to happen, but only realizing the whole idea could change. I also believe in process of experimenting can also help to realize or answer questions that come to mind, but of course it can open visuals and vocabulary to the idea, it gives 'newness' to the limitations.

Is it really useful to experiment if it doesn't have real application?

It was said that 'the amount of developmental time offered, the types of production processed used and the social in which the designer or typographer is operating - will affect the was a designer approaches the experimental and, consequently, the end product.' I personally feel like it doesn't have to be useful because designers can explore different ideas outside of the workplace. I sometimes wish I could have more time to finish experimenting with the different types of layouts I can use or the different formats that are out there. These ideas of what to use or where to position is just the little things I try to experiment with. I try to think of something new and different from what I have been doing, which I guess is sometimes another way of experimenting because I never really know what I can get done with until I get to the end result. I feel like experimenting an idea without a real application can somehow help influence later within an application, it can not be ruled out.