I definitely use signs, but think that aspects are far more important. Part of my thinking is that the sidereal (Vedic/jyotish) and tropical (western) zodiacs are considerably different today, due to precession of the equinoxes. Depending upon the author, the difference is estimated to be in the range of 24 or 27 degrees. This means that unless you have a planet or angle in a very late degree of a sign, it will be in the previous sign if you switch from a tropical to a sidereal zodiac.
Yet both systems can produce accurate results!
Apparently the reason why the Babylonians, in Days of Yore, switched from constellations to signs, was better to predict the locations of eclipses. They began their astrology by using constellations. However, some constellations occupy a lot of degrees along the ecliptic (Virgo =47) and others, only a few (Cancer=15.) By dividing the heavens into 30-degree sectors that roughly coincided with the constellations, eclipse degrees were easier to predict.
Two books I recommend are Robert Hand, Planets in Transit, and Planets in Youth. While he by no means ignores signs and houses, his major focus is on aspects; so you can see the huge amount of interpretive value that aspects have.
With aspects, the tighter the orb, the more the individual is likely to feel it. If you allow for declination (planets not always spot-on the ecliptic) you can see the above-horizon aspects in the sky, as well-- unlike the 30-degree pie sectors we call signs.
You probably know that the full moon is exactly opposite the sun, something that you can see on a clear night if you have good visibility at the eastern and western horizons just at sunset or a little after.