zlacker

>>erohea+(OP)
Wow, is sub 6" considered small nowadays?

What have we done

>>lbrito+2c
My comment exactly. We've really defined "small" up! I'm still running my 1st get iPhone SE, because I've yet to see a phone that can replace it. With a 4 inch screen, I can just barely use it one-handed.

>>abruzz+Ck
Thankfully, much of this is because of edge-to-edge display technology allowing for larger screens in the same size chassis. My Pixel 4a with a 5.8" screen has the same 69mm width as my old Nexus 5 with a 4.95" screen, and it's considerably less wide than my Nexus 5X or Moto X4 with their 5.2" screens (especially the X4, that thing was way too wide and was intensely uncomfortable to hold... I actually had to get a case for that one, and I was miserable the entire time I owned it).

>>amyjes+jp
So we better define a maximum phone width instead of a maximum diagonal display size. The aspect ratio changed from 16:9 to 19:9 or longer over the years, but the “extra” display area is the space that was occupied by hardware (sensor) keys for navigation, which you still had to tap … That leads to longer diagonal sizes per se.

So phones are not really getting longer in aspect ratio (except for some VERY long Sony phones), and they got more display area because of less thick edges. Naturally the mathematical diagonal size is larger, but that is a moot measurement compared with older phones with their 16:9 displays.

I am comfortable with everything less than 70mm width, and because the aspect ratio is kind of settled on 16:9 + navigation keys (or 19:9 complete display), the length is naturally restricted to ~150mm or less.

My A40 has 5.9" but still only 142 to 69mm in size. It does not feel like a 6" thing from 2017, and the reason is its small width and weight. Unfortunately, most new phones have width from 75+mm and weights of 190g or more.