I hope that works, Bee-ruce.
In the mean time I have been working on my article. It isn't finished, but I want you to know what I discovered until now.
I made a rather simple animation with several image layers of a little jumping girl:
I used the following settings (show one after another in the movie):
1. images on top of eachother, region binding, bone strength 1
2. images on top of eachother, region binding, bone strength 0.00001
3. images on top of eachother, flexible binding, bone strength 0.00001
4. images on top of eachother, flexible binding, bone strengh 1
5. images spread far apart, flexible binding, bone strength 0.00001
6. images spread far apart, region binding, bone strength 0.00001
7. images spread far apart, flexible binding, bone strength 1
8. images spread far apart, region binding, bone strength 1
1 is the worst result, then 2, then 3 and then 4. The difference in quality between 5 through 8 is small, but 6 is better than 5 and 7 is better than 6. I couldn't find any difference between 7 and 8, so they are both the best result.
You could argue that one would prefer 3 or 4, because when you spread the legs, the dress automatically widens. However, look what happens with the hair; that can't be right. Furthermore, you can add extra bones on the dress to widen it:
So, for this particular animation, it seems that putting as much space as possible between the image layers is a good thing, as well as setting the bone strength at a normal value. Then it doesn't matter what kind of binding you use.
At least in this animation. I want to create some more examples to see if there are cases where one might prefer one type of bone binding over another.