Some tradeoffs though; this is what it looks like on IE9 http://i.imgur.com/EkH81zN.png
Edit: he commented below saying it was IE11 with the IE9 emulation enabled.
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.
EDIT: it's worse, almost every image in the carousel is double-sized and unoptimized.
Otherwise it's pretty.
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-...).
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).
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.