You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: Method card design dimensions: a survey of card-based design tools 
Chapter Title:  Duration of use/ when in process. 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  Ideation Decks is a project that explores the development of a methodological tool for design ideation It involves the creation and use of bespoke project-specific card based systems which help to define constrained design problems within a broader overall problem space. Use of this system is intended to support the practice of parallel design by design practitioners, and to help more effectively explore specific problems by aiding in iterative design explorations. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  Playfulness can be observed in all areas of human activity. It is an attitude of making activities more enjoyable. Designing for playfulness involves creating objects that elicit a playful approach and provide enjoyable experiences. In this paper we introduce the design and evaluation of the PLEX Cards and its two related idea generation techniques. The cards were created to communicate the 22 categories of a Playful Experiences framework to designers and other stakeholders who wish to design for playfulness. We have evaluated the practical use of the cards by applying them in three design cases. The results show that the PLEX Cards are a valuable source of inspiration when designing for playfulness and the techniques help create a large amount of ideas in a short time.

Literature Review:
It is important to acknowledge the time investment that the various systems require -and to know when in the process they are used. This dimension includes key differences in the length of time ranging from one time use to sustained use of the system throughout the design process. Another aspect is the placement in the design process -whether the cards should be used in the very beginning, after initial field studies or prior to mockup sessions and prototyping. Four groups were identified, which range from anywhere/anytime to at a specific point in time. The Oblique Cards are an example of cards that can be used anywhere/any time in the process. They can be useful in the very first phase of idea generation, but also when facing problems during the design, being stuck or looking for alternatives. Cards presenting a collection of methods as the IDEO Method Cards  , are often positioned to be used as needed. As they provide a lot of different methods, some of those will fit in an early design stage, whereas others are for evaluation and testing. Other cards should be used at the beginning of the process as they provide input for further concept development; for example, PictureCARDs BIB001 are used after an initial field study and provide the basis for the card creation. The last aspect of time is that cards are used at a specific point, for example in a workshop. The Sound Design Deck is used in this way, when applying the introduced methodology. But even though most of the work with the cards is done in a short session (~2h), one should still refer back to the cards later in the design process. Methodology of use. Some of the cards can be used very freely, whereas others provide a methodology how to use the cards. Some of the approaches are playful and game-like; some have rules or discreet steps that should be followed. This can be helpful to get started using the cards but might at the same time be restrictive. We identified three groups in this category: no methodology, suggestion for use and specific instructions. Cards with no system are used ad-hoc with no suggested structured process provided by the authors. Cards of this type include IDEO  , SUTD  , and Oblique  . Most of the cards offer at least a basic suggestion for use. The DSKD Cards  come with a small brochure, which has some examples how the cards can be used. The authors of the PictureCARDs describe how they were using the cards, but there are no hard and fast, specific rules. The last category describes cards in which specific instructions are given. The authors of the Sound Design Cards introduced a specific method of how to use the cards, including a workspace with four regions in which cards can be moved, thus facilitating idea generation and keeping track of the design work at the same time. Inspiration Cards [2] also provide specific instructions, noting where the cards should be arranged on a poster to formulate a design idea. Customization. Although we acknowledge that any technology tool will be adapted and appropriated into the user's life, in this dimension, we describe the degree to which the tool provides for customization as part of its use. The first group we identified in this category is no customization. When we examine the SUTD, Oblique, etc cards, they are intended to be static and unchanged. Cards offering trivial customization, do not allow the user to add or modify content, but only to structure or group the cards. This is the case with the IDEO iPhone app that in most respects replicates the paper cards  allowing the user to make groups and add cards to the groups. The Sound Design Deck provides for optional customization, whereas users can create their own cards and add them to a wiki. This is intended and welcome by the authors, as they aim to create a pattern language for sound design. The last group of cards requires customization in order to be utilized. Examples here are the Inspiration Cards, the Ideation Deck BIB002 or Questionable Concept Cards. The cards have to be created beforehand and are therefore applicable in the specific project, which helps the designer to get a better understanding of the project domain. Formal qualities. While the focus of this paper is on "cards", there are differences in the physical properties (2-sides, paper, size, shape), connections to virtual systems (stand alone or connected to objects in the room or in the virtual world), and appearances (images, diagrams, words, color schemes, etc.) Other formal qualities include issues such as the fact that some card systems have only one copy of a card vs. multiple copies, etc. We do not provide for all possible configurations, however, we provide graduations according to the use of media. The simplest type of cards have only text or only images, while most of the cards combine text and image or illustration, like the Inspiration Cards or the PLEX Cards BIB003 . The authors of PLEX Cards present their evaluation of the cards, and describe feedback regarding the images. This feedback highlights the importance of choosing suitable images for cards-they claim that the image should be abstract enough to allow an open interpretation, but at the same time detailed enough so that the user can relate to and interpret it. There are various card systems where the content is divided into different categories, as with the IDEO Method cards or the SUTD Cards, which provides thematic structure in the cards and suggests how the cards relate to each other. Finally, there are some cards, which have a virtual component, as in the Sound Design Deck, which connects the physical cards to the online wiki providing additional information and example videos.