Broken: In Vegas, it's curtains for you

While I agree that it isn't a very good design, it only took me a few seconds of looking to figure out. The left column of buttons controls the solid curtains (the heavy light blocking ones), the right column controls the sheer (translucent ones that stop visibility but still let in illumination). The top buttons open, the bottom buttons close, while the middle buttons stop opening or closing, so you can have the curtains part-way open/closed.

Did I get it right?

Those are exactly the same buttons which control the doors on my airplane hangar, and on several other electric doors I've seen, in the same arrangement - open/stop/close. Perhaps someone who isn't familiar with curtains might not know the term "sheer", but I can't think of any one-word synonym. They could have used "inner" and "outer", I suppose, but it's probably a standard switchplate.

Put the button labels in between, instead of below, the buttons, and treat the words "solid" and "sheer" as headers to each column of buttons, instead of making them identical to the button labels.

Better yet, have one switch that specifies whether you are affecting "solid" or "sheer," then have buttons for each function, much like a car mirror (Left/Right mirror switch, then directional controls).

And better names than solid or sheer: how about "heavy blind" and "light blind"?

A little thinking, designing, and writing would have made this much easier to use.

The keypad layout is not so bad: it's the typography! I'm always loathe to use rule lines when I don't have too but that might even help. But this problem could be solved simply with better typography, and layout, as suggested by Mike.

The key words in the poster's complaint: natural mapping. There is no natural mapping between the buttons and their functions. Were there such a natural mapping, the typography would matter much less.

This could be remedied inexpensively; if each of the two curtains were controlled by a three-position rocker switch, mounted horizontally, where the center position was "stop" and the outer positions effected momentary contact (so releasing them returned the control to the stop position) could easily and quickly be learned without having to read the faceplate at all.

Whether or not the controls are standard is immaterial; whether or not they are also common to electrically-operated doors is immaterial; if they are at all difficult to learn that is too much.

I agree with FigmentPez. Doesn't look like rocket science to me or that it's broken. In fact, it looks pretty straight forward to me, too!

Complex things might be allowed to have complex controls, but simple things should have simple controls. In other words, one wouldn't necessarily expect an airplane to have simplistic controls, because it is a very complex device. However, a keypad to raise and lower two sets of blinds in a hotel room should be extremely simple and immediately understandable. Whether this keypad is broken or not isn't really the point: the fact that it requires any interpretation at all is, in fact, broken.