It still comes down to screen size
As you sit on the bus or train, look about and see what people are reading. Some have table-cloth sized newspapers, as much for the privacy they afford as for the content. Others have tabloids - the less said about those, the better. However the smallest sized area that people seem to be willing to read from, is a paperback for text-only content and a roughly A4 sized magazine for mixed pictures and text. There will be a few early adopters who are squinting at a postage-stamp sized screen, trying desperately to discern any details on their screens through the scuffed touch-screen protector and the glare from the ambient lighting. However these people are simply looking at pictures: a moving head here, an exploding car there - no nuances whatsoever. Absolutely no prospect of seeing any textual information. You can just, possibly, get by with a PDA - but the fuss of scrolling side-to-side and up-and-down rapidly turns into a chore and you're back to watching exploding heads, or the breakfast-time sofa again.
No, people have decided that the minimum size layout they want, for getting information without fuss, eye-strain or shifting the active area all over the place is the size that magazines have evolved into. Device makers need to learn this lesson and size their equipment accordingly. With the technology we have available, that also puts a lower limit on the power consumption of the screen and (for any realistic duration of use) a lower limit on the size and weight of the battery pack. I'd suggest that rather than looking for ways to persuade the public that "small is good" (especially when they/we get the exact, opposite, message from plasma/LCD TV makers), they should expend effort on lower consumption displays and lighter, smaller batteries.
One alternative is to move the screen closer to the user's eye. All you have to worry about then is continually bumping into things and small children mocking the fact that you look like the Borg - surely a small price to pay.


