4 ms·

It's working properly in our IE9 VM. Are you getting JS errors? Any other debugging info would be great.

• platz 12y ago
  IE11 has a feature, Emulation: Document Mode = IE9. No JS errors, so I assume it's a difference of how the "Document Mode = IE9" fails to actually emulate true IE9. Sorry for the false positive.
• radicalbyte 12y ago
  I recommend you look at image optimization. Loading the /nl flag page from NL takes > 9 seconds. On a connection with 20Mb/s down with one of the best ISPs available. There are 3MB of images on the page; the problem seems to be the high-res map, which weights in at 1.5MB. This image is 2290x798 and it's in an element of 1145x399. I've halved the resolution and converted it to a JPEG, now it's 0.2MB. To make it even easier for you to show the designers I've uploaded it here: http://imgur.com/XcGllGz http://imgur.com/XcGllGz. EDIT: it's worse, almost every image in the carousel is double-sized and unoptimized. Otherwise it's pretty.
  • zsoltgyongyosi 12y ago
    A wild guess, but maybe they target retina displays.
  • ricardobeat 12y ago
    You are talking about the home page, right? Images are double size for retina displays. Your JPEG version is pointless, the flags are placed on top of the background and need an alpha channel. The page is indeed a bit heavy but not enough to impair the experience, first paint is still under 3s. Remember the audience for this page is 90% software developers, with powerful machines and high bandwidth.
    • radicalbyte 12y ago
      > flags are placed on top of the background and need an alpha channel Ok, that explains the huge PNGs; can't they be rendered as-is (i.e. include part of the background in the foreground picture? > first paint is still under 3s That's really slow. The jankey animation (yay Apple) and rasterized image rendering is horrible; it's a throwback to the late-90s internet. > the audience for this page is 90% software developers, > with powerful machines and high bandwidth. I.e. me, and I find it horribly slow. I'm using a year old rMBP and I have a pretty good internet connection (20MB/s, 10x what I could get in the UK and I actually get pretty close to the max all the time; for a comparison: http://www.webanalyticsworld.net/2014/08/internet-speed-gap-widens.html http://www.webanalyticsworld.net/2014/08/internet-speed-gap-...). Sure, I'd love fiber, but that's not exactly broadly available (though if I could move my house 1km to the east I'd have it).
      • nknighthb 12y ago
        I'm on a late-2013 rMBP running Yosemite. The page looks nice and animates smoothly in both Chrome and Safari. There may be some deeper problem on your system.
        • vacri 12y ago
          The page looks beautiful, but the animation is janky on my FF36
    • tracker1 12y ago
      I tend to use a combination on pngquant and optipng on most png based graphics. I'm sure there are builds for OSX out there (probably homebrew recipes even). This will bring the color palette down to less than 256, some images will work better than others, in this case I didn't notice a difference and the size went from 434KB to 133KB in size using the batch file I normally use for this[1]... I haven't checked recently to see if there are newer tools/versions for use, I keep several utils inside my dropbox for windows usage. [1] https://gist.github.com/tracker1/e41d6b7dc55f962d85a3 https://gist.github.com/tracker1/e41d6b7dc55f962d85a3
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]