That figure is extremely convoluted. I had to read the entire article before even beginning to somewhat understand what you're trying to say.
I don't understand why you're separating by manufacturer yet the scale on that figure is still to the total sum of respondents. What is the relevance in knowing that 12% of all respondents who happen to use Cisco devices are already in use now. What is relevant is a) what fraction of total users already use ac, and potentially b) what fraction of Cisco users are using ac currently.
The problem with separating by manufacturer is your sample size is too small for everything but Cisco, additionally your article doesn't even address the effect of manufacturer on adoption rates, which could be interesting. Yet you present this data in your figure.
Sorry, this really irritated me as this could actually be useful.
I don't understand why you're separating by manufacturer yet the scale on that figure is still to the total sum of respondents. What is the relevance in knowing that 12% of all respondents who happen to use Cisco devices are already in use now. What is relevant is a) what fraction of total users already use ac, and potentially b) what fraction of Cisco users are using ac currently.
The problem with separating by manufacturer is your sample size is too small for everything but Cisco, additionally your article doesn't even address the effect of manufacturer on adoption rates, which could be interesting. Yet you present this data in your figure.
Sorry, this really irritated me as this could actually be useful.