Notch good: Apple explains how the cursor interacts with its new MacBook Pro display notch

[cor.2: size sense]

screen aspect ratio:
167:100 >> laptop, desktop, tv, ...
167:73 >> mobile, ...
167:127 >> pad, ...
167:154 >> watch, ...
154:167 >> foldable mobile, ...

here is the correlation between numbers and screen aspect ratios. try them and compare them with current values as reference. then talking about diagonals would make sense

diagonals are of no use, if there is no std screen aspect ratio for all brands of screens; either laptops, pc monitors, tv screens, pads, mobile phones, ...

Diagonal is just as useful as width if you have a given aspect ratio. But a diagonal captures both width and height. In an obscure fashion. That's the advantage it has over just width. Width tells you nothing whatsoever about height. Diagonal anchors both width and height. It doesn't tell you what exactly they are but they are bound; you know where the numbers must fall. If a diagonal is 40 cm, then height can't be 90 cm. Just can't. Both width and height have to be within 40 cm.

But they are. Or were. To an extent. Nowadays, we have more options than ever. But historically, aspect ratios were pretty fixed and slow changing. TV broadcast used to be 4:3. Now it's 16:9. Cinema has their favourite aspect ratios. Still photography has theirs. Even computer monitors have a set of common ratios that were largely influenced by video. Only phones are sort of whatever fits. When you're buying monitors or TVs, you tend to compare like for like. If you want a super-wide monitor, you won't be looking at 16:9. Aspect ratio tells you the shape. And a diagonal tells you the size.

[cor.3: size sense correl.]

screen aspect ratio:
166:100 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> laptop, desktop, tv
166:74 (vertical length:horizontal length) >> mobile
166:126 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> tablet (landscape)
166:152 (vertical length:horizontal length) >> watch
166:152 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> foldable mobile (when open)

[cor.3: size sense correl.]

screen aspect ratio:
166:100 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> laptop, desktop, tv
166:74 (vertical length:horizontal length) >> mobile
166:126 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> tablet (landscape)
166:152 (vertical length:horizontal length) >> watch
166:152 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> foldable mobile (when open)

diagonals are of no use, if there is no std screen aspect ratio for all brands of screens; either laptops, pc monitors, tv screens, pads, mobile phones, ...

Diagonal is just as useful as width if you have a given aspect ratio. But a diagonal captures both width and height. In an obscure fashion. That's the advantage it has over just width. Width tells you nothing whatsoever about height. Diagonal anchors both width and height. It doesn't tell you what exactly they are but they are bound; you know where the numbers must fall. If a diagonal is 40 cm, then height can't be 90 cm. Just can't. Both width and height have to be within 40 cm.

But they are. Or were. To an extent. Nowadays, we have more options than ever. But historically, aspect ratios were pretty fixed and slow changing. TV broadcast used to be 4:3. Now it's 16:9. Cinema has their favourite aspect ratios. Still photography has theirs. Even computer monitors have a set of common ratios that were largely influenced by video. Only phones are sort of whatever fits. When you're buying monitors or TVs, you tend to compare like for like. If you want a super-wide monitor, you won't be looking at 16:9. Aspect ratio tells you the shape. And a diagonal tells you the size.