Hey, thanks for the kind words! Nice post. I do have a question here though: "I haven't heard a single agilist I consider knowing his (or her) stuff say that the goal should be 100% test automation and 0% manual testing. " What room in 100% test automation is there for any other percentage? Isn't 100% inclusive of all? How can I squeeze in any manual tests if 100% of the tests are automated? Now, I know what you mean, but the language we use is important. I run into this frequently with decision makers - recently with a CEO who had heard this figure and wanted us to stop doing manual testing. When he heard "100% of tests should be automated", the corollary is naturally that there is 0% left for any other tests. If he had heard "80% of the tests should be automated", or "most of this kind of test should be automated", it would have saved him from some confusion. In this case, this team had a history of reckless test automation, and the manual exploratory tests we were executing found 5 showstopping, expensive, embarrassing bugs that were in production, missed because of so-called "Agile Testing" thoughtless automation efforts. He felt we would be more effective if we dropped the manual tests altogether, not realizing that the balance of both was key. If the CEO comes and tells an employee you can't have manual tests, and your performance review is tied to automated tests, etc. etc., what are you going to do? In the end, the CEO said he cared about results, and thanked me for clearing the confusion. I run into this frequently, which is why I rant. Good blog by the way - I appreciate what you're doing. :)