Hi! by way of an exception, I'd begin with quoting parts of our private messages on 2017-10-15:
― dpla: “Unfortunately, "berry 19" looks like a binary code (like Braille's), while my incomplete US-ASCII font in this strict matrix is almost readable (with a long learnig curve).”
― Tangle10: “Well, Berry 19 looks like binary because it is, effectively, binary. Each successive pixel has a value of twice the previous one.”

The horizontal spacing confused me on October… (and I believe Umbreon126 right before me, because he made me aware of this new fontstruction as if it could be useful to my main project of standard Latin glyphs…)

I'll try to understand this issue, knowing that multiple instances of Braille representations/styles were already devised by this playful community.

Yes, your SPACING is uncommon; this just canNOT work to me.
In real life, I assume the spacing is mainly built after a strict 2x3 matrix.
Understand: MONOSPACE… is mandatory.

As it is currently, the blind may read "z" instead of "x y"…
(With an intense search [not only by 'chance'], you could even end up with incidental pairs, i.e. a readable string A = a readable Braille string B.)

OR did you just overlook fontstructing the necessary extra horizontal spacing of (some of the) glyphs that use a single column (esp. the first one)?

• Please add a mapping of your 64 glyphs (at least the easiest characters for us to input), since it may be a necessary documentation if you did not map (only?) to the dedicated Unicode range;

• And I'd like to know why I can see 3x3 glyphs after your series of (flawed 2x3) Baille. (Deceptive 3x3 font? :-))

More upon reply/request/PM.^^