Comparing sites designed in 960 with sites designed using Blueprint, it seems to me the 960 sites are a lot sharper.
I don't know if this is a coincidence of the samples I'm looking at.
Or is there something about 960 that is more conducive to good design?
i personally think that the main difference is learning curve and flexibility. the 960 will let you do 960px wide sites and learning curve is very low. watch this video you'll have your site design up in few minutes: http://net.tutsplus.com/videos/screencasts/a-detailed-look-at-the-960-css-framework/
blueprint is more flexible. but still 960.gs is my personal preference.
Neither are conducive to good design! When your CSS framework starts determining the class names that you are using in your HTML, it's a bad thing.... Your class names should be descriptive (i.e. header, sidebar, footer, etc.).
When you're designing for the web, it's all about semantics and doing what's best for that given situation. In this case, you should be thinking, "what is the best, or most descriptive, class name I could use here?" When thinking this way, you end up with the cleanest, easiest to read, write, and edit code. When you ask "what's conducive to good design?", you have to assume that "good design" is applies not just to the styling of the site, but also to the structure and semantics of the code underneath the hood.
If you really want to use framework, I would recommend creating your own templates for sites that you build a lot of. If you build a lot of two-column, left sidebar sites, then create a very basic structured css file that already has a few IDs and class names ready to go for that type of site. However, you can't get carried away... Keep it simple, and just let it apply to the layout and the major elements of the page. The larger your starting file is, the more it will restrict the IDs and class names you use in your HTML.
in addition to Chris Schmitz post - when I use the blueprint CSS I always have a question, should I use 2 or more classnames for one div
<div class="span-13 prepend-7 my-class-name">
.span-13 {width:510px;} // from blueprint
.prepend-7 {padding-left:280px;} // from blueprint
.my-class-name {font:, color: background}
or union it in one class
<div class="my-class-name">
.my-class-name {font:; color:; background:; width:510px; padding-left:280px;}
and I always select the second variant,
also I didn't happy with this (using blueprint is requirement) reset code in blueprint
h1 {font-size:3em;line-height:1;margin-bottom:0.5em;} h2 {font-size:2em;margin-bottom:0.75em;} h3 {font-size:1.5em;line-height:1;margin-bottom:1em;}
to avoid any differents in browsers I always ovverride the blueprint values with zero in my classes .my-class-name h1 {margin: 0px;}
So, conclusion is - if you didn't want to have your styles and design -> blueprint is your choice
In agreement with Chris Schmitz I prefer to use my own more semantic set of classes, but that's not to say I don't delve into a framework occasionally. If I do use a framework, then I tend to strip it back to bare bones and customize it extensively depending on my required layout. I know in some ways this defeats the object of using a framework but it gives me the best of both worlds: Knowing it will work across most browsers, as well as being semantic and sitting comfortably alongside my existing code.
Personally, I use Blueprint (if and when I need a framework). The 960 Grid system is well built but quite restrictive. When it comes to customization Blueprint wins.