Color Design Research Analysis of Hotel Public Space For User Interaction Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today's increasingly developed tourism industry and people's increasing aesthetic needs, the demand for hotel environment is also increasing. The color in the hotel space is combined with the human experience. In the design of hotel space, "experience" can make people truly feel the space, and people can interact with the space in all directions. This interaction is not only reflected in the facilities in the hotel, but also in the environmental elements of the hotel. Excellent color matching will attract users' attention more easily. In addition, good color matching can make the design get a better user experience. Engage users and spaces emotionally through the physical environment. In interaction design, color is the most direct and influential factor. Taking a hotel in Seoul as an example, this paper investigates the elements of color design in the interaction design of hotel public spaces. The colors in the interaction design are divided into main colors, which are used to determine the atmosphere of the space, complement the colors, enhance and highlight the main colors as space decoration. Firstly, through the literature survey, the hotel space color and user experience are sorted out and analyzed. And through the scene analysis of the role of color in the design of the hotel public space service environment. According to research, these elements need to complement each other to form a good color interaction design of hotel space. The survey shows that the color matching of modern hotel spaces is more harmonious and unified, but it lacks diversity and interest. Managers need to improve in this regard, on the one hand is the special design, on the other hand is to improve the hotel color environment to attract customers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".