Title: Multimodal design representation Context: While we often design/make through procedures, tools and methods established (and sometimes, given for granted) within our discipline, the complexities of design have been addressed by ongoing research on communication, cognition or art studies. Much debate has been conducted on framing design as a highly complex, distributed cognitive activity influenced by our distinctive literacies and interests. This topic invites you to engage with the notion of augmentation (as in an improvement or enhancement) resulting from the flowing merge, transition and/or overlap between physical/analogue and digital design methods. Theories related to this field are those of multimodality and distributed cognition. Question: You are invited to, then, reflect upon your own practice by discussing the implications of hybrid (physical/digital) methods of architectural production and representation. Consider the idea of digital literacies; How does this augment our capacity for design proposition and representation? What are the qualities of those emergent modes of design production and communication? Suggested reading: Jewitt, C. (Ed.). 2009. The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis London: Routledge. (Note: refer to 14–27). Jewitt, C. 2013. Multimodal Methods for Researching Digital Technologies. In Price, S., Jewitt, C. & Brown, B. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Digital Technology Research. London: Sage.?Kress, G. R., and Van Leeuwen, T. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Psychology Press. Kress, G. 2004. “Reading images: Multimodality, representation and new media.” Information Design Journal, 12(2), 110–119.?Kress, G., & Selander, S. 2012. “Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition.” The Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), 265–268.?Lymer, G., Lindwall, O., and Ivarsson, J. 2011. Space and discourse interleaved: Intertextuality and interpretation in